mitchell julie b
TRANSCRIPT
EXPLORING MIDCAREER WOMEN’S GRADUATE SCHOOL TRANSITION:
DEPARTMENT SOCIALIZATION TACTICS AND PERCEIVED FIT
A thesis submitted to the School of Communication Studies, Kent State University,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of Arts degree
by
Julie B. Mitchell
May, 2010
Thesis written by
Julie B. Mitchell
B.S., University of Evansville, 1981
M.A., Kent State University, 2010
Approved by
______________________________ Robyn E. Parker, Ph.D., Advisor ______________________________ Donald L. Bubenzer, Ph.D., Director, School of Communication Studies ______________________________ Stanley T. Wearden, Ph.D., Dean, College of Communication and Information
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ……………...………………………………………….…….. v
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………….. 1
Thesis Origins in Personal Experience ……………………………………..… 1 Purpose ………………………………………………………………………. 2 Theoretical Context and Rationale …………………………………………... 3
Socialization and Proactive Newcomer Communication Research Gaps … 5 Situated Socialization: The Need to Understand Context and Newcomer Differences …………… 7
The Significance of Socialization Practices in Graduate Education ……… 8 Socialization From the Midcareer Transition Woman’s Perspective ...…… 9 Summary and Assumptions .………………………………….....………. 11
Organizational Socialization Communication Processes …………………… 13 Jablin’s Perspective and Stage Model ………………………………….... 14 Criticisms of Traditional Research Approaches ………………………… 17
Contemporary Research Foci: Proactive Newcomers and Socialization in Context ……………………. 18 How Organizations Socialize Newcomers ………………………………….. 20
Organizational Socialization Processes: Tactics and Messages...……….. 20 Organizational Socialization Messages …………………………...……. 23
How Newcomers Interpret and Respond to Socialization Messages ……….. 25 Proactive Newcomer Communication in Context ……………………... 26
The Research Context: Graduate Student Socialization …………………….. 28 Summary and Research Focus ………………………………………… 33
The Newcomer: Midcareer Transition Women Graduate Students ………… 34 Literature Summary and Research Questions ………………………………. 37
II. METHODOLOGY …………………………………………………………….. 40 Research Approach …………………………………………………………. 40 Recruitment and Description of Participants .……………...….…………….. 41 Table 1 - Sample Description .……………………………………………… 43 Data Collection: The Interviewing Procedure ………………………………. 44 Data Analysis and Interpretation ……………………………………………. 47
Data Reduction and Theoretical Sensitivity …………………………… 47 The Coding Process …………………………………………………… 49 Clustering Data Into Categories ……………………………………….. 49 Thematic Analysis and Generation of Meaning .………………………. 50
Credibility of Findings and Member Checking ……………………………... 51 Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 53
iii
III. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………….. 54 Introduction of Themes ...…………………………………………………… 54
Interpretations of Socialization Messages ………………………………….. 56 Department Fit ………………………………………………………….. 58
Bad fit and lack of insider support ………………………………….. 60 Feeling at home - finding relational fit and insider faculty support .... 63
Identity Losses: Another Layer of Complexity ………..……………….. 66 Summary of Themes Related to
Interpretations of Socialization Messages ……………………………… 69 Responses to Socialization Messages ………………………………………. 70
Interactive Stress Reactions ……………………………………………. 70 Internal Success Strategies ……………………………………………... 72 Summary of Themes Related to Socialization Message Responses …..... 75
Proactive Communication Themes ………………………………………..... 76 Positive Proactive Communication …………………………………….. 77 Sink or Swim Survival Communication …………………………..…… 81
Summary of Findings ………………………………………………………. 84
IV. DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………… 86 Introduction ………………….……………………………………………… 86
Implications for Organizational Socialization Processes …………………… 87 Department Fit and Socialization Tactics ……………………………… 88 Good Fit, Investiture and Faculty Support …………………………..…. 89 Identity Losses and Pre-entry Divestiture ……………………………… 90 Bad Fit, Divestiture and Sink or Swim Proactivity …………………….. 91
Implications for Practice in Traditional Graduate Departments …………….. 93 Implications for Department-wide Socialization Practices …………..… 93 Implications for Graduate Faculty ……………………………………... 95
Limitations and Future Research …………………………………………… 96 Conclusions ………………………………………………………………… 98
APPENDICES A. Interview Schedule …………………………………………………………....101
B. Definitions and Parameters For Data Reduction and Analysis ………………104 C. Codebook Defining Final Themes ..…….………..……………………………109
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………114
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my advisor Dr. Robyn Parker, who did not give up on me despite an
inconvenient research process during which I moved away and experienced more delays
than an advisor should have to endure. I thank Dr. Mei-Chen Lin and Dr. Janet Meyer for
serving on my committee and offering helpful feedback. Other scholars shared time and
advice, including Drs. Jean Bartunek, Elise Dallimore, Jane Dutton, Adam Grant and Steve
May. I thank my northeast Ohio thesis support buddies and Chapel Hill folks who rooted
for me, including clients, friends and my church community. I appreciate the wisdom and
generosity of coaches Nancy Allen and Dr. Mary Bast. I thank my parents for the
wonderful gift of a writing retreat in Florida and my sister Shelley for expertly reviewing
an early chapter. Three people made a big difference as I tried, often unsuccessfully, to
balance thesis completion with moving (twice), running my business, and handling the rest
of life. I doubt I could have done it without them. My friend Amy Rosenthal, MD cared
about every detail of my “project” and cared for me by prescribing music therapy, beach
time, walks, talks and dark chocolate. Dr. Patti Meglich patiently witnessed my rocky path
as a midlife graduate student. I appreciate her loyal friendship, good humor, compassion
and willingness to give feedback from the perspective of one who has “been there.” Matt
Rosamond sustained me through the final year of thesis work with love expressed in
countless ways, from fun adventures and trips to hugs, proofreading, coffee-making and
“releasing the hounds.” I am blessed to know others too numerous to list who expressed
faith in me. You know who you are. Thanks for listening and encouraging me during a
challenging time. Finally, I thank the women who participated in this research. I admire
what they have accomplished and will continue to accomplish.
v
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Thesis Origins in Personal Experience
I changed my life at age 45 when I gave up my consulting practice, sold my home
and moved near a state university to begin graduate study. I loved college teaching and
was eager to earn credentials that would allow me to pursue a new career as a full-time
professor. I knew my transition to graduate school would not be easy but I found the
adjustment to be more challenging than I expected. Not only was I surprised about how
things were done in my graduate department but also it was obvious that my age, life
stage and experiences distinguished me from most graduate students in my program. In
addition, I was constantly aware of what I had left behind while I was learning about my
new role. Although some aspects of graduate school suited me well from the start, it was
very difficult for me to lose my former professional identity and status.
Mixed emotions, confusing messages and awkward encounters characterized my
first semester in graduate school. I was unprepared for the academic department culture
in which I was a teaching assistant and a nontraditional student. It felt like the department
was unprepared for me too. Orientation activities, information and policies seemed
targeted to students half my age. I initially thought of faculty, staff and administrators as
peers and wanted to connect with them because demographically they were similar to me.
However, graduate students were my official peer group and I was encouraged to
socialize with them. My feelings and interactions with others in the department were
complicated. I loved my coursework and what I was learning. I was pleased to be
recognized as more experienced than other new teaching assistants when I was given the
2
responsibility to teach two courses on my own. Yet my professional experience seemed
irrelevant in contexts other than interactions with undergraduates I was teaching. To sum
it up, I wasn’t sure where I fit and the first semester was disorienting.
In some respects I understood that my experiences were typical of adapting to any
new environment. This perception was affirmed when I learned about organizational
socialization theory that first semester. Yet I noticed the socialization literature did not
accurately represent my graduate school adjustment process. For example, I planned a
temporary relationship with the organization I had joined. My graduate program was a
necessary step toward an anticipated career shift and I was not a full-time employee with
the intention to remain. Nor had I followed the usual path to graduate work.
My age, career background, life stage plus what I had given up immediately
before graduate school made me different from most members of my cohort. I discovered
that literature on graduate student socialization also did not fit my experiences because it
failed to consider how the adjustment process was different for older, experienced
students. Thus, this exploratory study was born with a personal goal in mind: I wanted to
find out whether women in similar circumstances shared my experiences, such as feeling
out of place among the graduate student cohort and being unsure about where they stood
with faculty or administrators closer to their ages.
Purpose
This thesis was grounded in lived experience. The purpose was to explore the
organizational socialization experiences of twenty midcareer transition women during
their first semesters of fulltime graduate education in traditional academic departments.
An interpretive phenomenological interviewing approach was designed to elicit an in
3
depth understanding of participants’ adjustment to organizations where they did not fit
the norm (Van Manen, 1990; 2002).
Research on socialization-communication processes provided a theoretical
framework for the study (Jablin, 2001). The intent was to address inter-related
communication and higher education research gaps and to inform knowledge by focusing
on an under-studied localized socialization context (Ashforth, Sluss & Harrison, 2007;
Golde, 2005; Waldeck & Myers, 2007). Specifically, this thesis answered calls for more
research about the organizational adjustment process from the perspective of unique
newcomers who did not fit established models or assumptions about socialization (Allen,
1996; Ballard & Gossett, 2007; Clair, 1999). Thus I focused solely on the perceptions of
newcomers and intentionally did not address the other half of the socialization process,
i.e., the perspectives of the socializing organization and its members.
This thesis also responded to higher education calls to address the socialization of
nontraditional older graduate students. Higher education research emphasizes the need to
learn more about older students’ experiences and their adjustment into academic
departments through interviewing them (Brus, 2006; Polson, 2003). Finally, this thesis
was designed with practical purposes too. I hoped findings would stimulate further
research, inform graduate education socialization practices and be of interest to midcareer
transition women considering traditional fulltime graduate study as a step toward an
anticipated new career.
Theoretical Context and Rationale
For decades, research has addressed the socialization process that occurs when
someone begins an affiliation with a new organization. The organization-individual
4
relationship has been examined from a wide range of perspectives (Ashforth et al., 2007;
Bullis & Stout, 2000; Hess, 1993; Jones, 1986; Moreland, Levine, & McMinn, 2001;
Smith & Turner, 1995; Waldeck & Myers, 2007). Communication literature about
message exchanges between the newcomer and the organization emphasizes that
socialization is a dynamic, communicative process (Jablin, 1987, 2001). During this
interactive process organizations use various tactics or socialization messages to orient
newcomers. Simultaneously, newcomers receive this information, interpret or try to make
sense of it, then react and respond (Jablin, 1982; Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980; Reichers,
1987).
Traditional socialization models conceptualize the process as a series of stages
people pass through in chronological order related to their age or career stage. This linear
process is presumed to result in assimilation, full organizational membership or
engagement, and a sense of belonging with the organization (Bullis & Bach, 1989; Jablin,
1987). The organizational entry, encounter or adjustment stage of socialization is critical
to determining the trajectory of the individual-organization relationship (Jablin, 2001). It
is assumed that during this stage the newcomer learns as much as possible in order to fit
into the organization (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Cooper-Thomas, van Vianen & Anderson,
2004; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). It is a time of anxiety, shock and surprise for most
newcomers (Louis, 1980). They must make sense of their new role, discover how things
are done, learn what is considered appropriate behavior, find their places in the
organization and how they are perceived or valued there.
This adjustment stage has important implications for both newcomers and
organizations. The quality of early socialization experiences influences how well the
5
newcomer adapts and perceives good fit; if the adjustment is positive and successful, the
newcomer may feel welcomed, take on organizational values and feel proud to be part of
the organization (Chapman, 2008; Gundry & Rousseau, 1994; Lundberg & Young,
1997). On the other hand, a poor or ineffective adjustment is associated with newcomer
perceptions of bad fit, including negative feelings about the organization and an early exit
(Golde, 2005; Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005). Our knowledge is incomplete regarding
specific types of socialization experiences most likely to be associated with good or bad
fit from the perspective of newcomers.
Some research indicates that particular socialization strategies used by
organizations impact newcomers’ perceptions of poor fit and the choice to leave and also
may influence newcomers’ patterns of proactive communication during adjustment (e.g.,
Ashforth et al., 2007; Korte, 2009). However, the research on socialization tactics or
strategies and their apparent relationship to newcomer adjustment and proactive
communication is inconsistent. This variance in research findings mirrors the complexity
and lack of coherence in socialization research overall (Turner, 1999). Recent literature
reflects an increasing awareness of how different organizational contexts and/or unique
types of newcomers result in findings that challenge or contradict earlier research
conducted in different contexts.
Socialization and Proactive Newcomer Communication Research Gaps
In the last decade there has been an increased focus on learning more about the
variance in proactive socialization behavior by newcomers, including their proactive
communication (Ashforth et al. 2007; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Jablin, 2001). Newcomers
are not merely passive recipients of information but take an active role while adapting to
6
organizations (Ashford & Black, 1996; Jones, 1986; Moreland et al., 2001). Years of
research highlight communication (information seeking, specifically) as the primary
means newcomers use to reduce uncertainty in unfamiliar or ambiguous situations (e.g.,
Mignerey, Rubin & Gorden, 1995; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Teboul, 1995; Weick, 1995).
However, research is inconclusive and incomplete regarding circumstances under which
newcomers ask more (or fewer) questions to clear up confusion (Ashforth et al. 2007).
We also need to learn more about how newcomers behave as active agents in their own
socialization process through engaging in other forms of proactive communication
beyond information seeking (Jablin, 1987; 2001).
Scholars across disciplines have underscored various organization and individual
factors that influence the quality and quantity of proactive communication during
adjustment, including demographic or personality differences among newcomers (e.g.,
Finkelstein, Kulas, & Dages, 2003; Scott & Myers, 2005; Tidwell & Sias, 2005). The
rationale for this work is that some newcomers are more proactive than others or may be
proactive in distinct ways. We need to understand why or how variations in proactive
newcomer behavior occur.
Until the last decade, most socialization research has focused on the
organization’s socialization tactics and goals, which privileges the organization over the
individual (Bullis, 1999; Clair, 1999; Turner, 1999). More recent research is based on the
need to understand the process from both perspectives, affirming the reciprocal nature of
socialization and the fact that no two organizations or individuals are the same (Jablin,
2001). It is important for organizations to consider their socialization practices in terms of
the increasingly diverse newcomers they may wish to attract and retain. It is equally
7
important for individuals to consider how well they may fit a work group or culture
before they make the decision to join an organization. Because poor fit is costly for both
organizations and individuals, contemporary research highlights the need to understand
how various organizational contexts, their socialization practices, and different types of
newcomers may or may not fit (Ashforth et al., 2007; Cable & Parsons, 2001).
Situated Socialization: The Need to Understand Context and Newcomer Differences
Hundreds of studies since the late 1950s have enhanced our understanding of how
the socialization process unfolds for most people starting relationships with most
organizations (Ashforth et al. 2007; Jablin, 2001). However, for years scholars have
argued that atypical socialization circumstances and diversity among newcomers are not
adequately addressed nor understood through traditional research approaches (Allen,
1996; Bullis, 1993; Clair, 1999; Turner, 1999). Models, theories and measures associated
with socialization (also called assimilation by some communication scholars) are
generally based on assumptions of uniformity among both organizations and the
individuals that join them. For example, traditional research tends to assume that
organizations socialize all new fulltime paid employees in similar ways and that
newcomers are demographically similar to members of their cohort (i.e., other
newcomers). Newcomers are typically framed as young and starting a career or first job
where they are expected to remain for an extended period and make a contribution
(Jablin, 2001). These models do not fit many contemporary organizational socialization
contexts.
In reality, many people who begin affiliations with organizations and are
socialized into them do not fit the profile of the paid, full-time employee. Their individual
8
life circumstances, experiences, organizational context or adjustment process may
diverge substantially from what socialization models suggest (Bullis & Stout, 2000;
Forward, 1999; Gibson & Papa, 2002). Variations in career paths and employment
patterns — including the phenomena of seasoned professionals changing careers at
midlife — require that we expand and improve our understanding of socialization
through applied research in under-studied contexts (Ballard & Gossett, 2007; Ibarra,
2003; Keyton, Bisel, & Ozley, 2009; Smith & Turner, 1995; Waldeck & Myers, 2007).
One such context is the focus of this thesis: traditional academic departments socializing
nontraditional midcareer women graduate students.
The Significance of Socialization Practices in Graduate Education
Recent calls emphasizing the need to address organizational socialization from
“localized” contexts are based on recognition that newcomers are socialized through
interpersonal interactions and events in their immediate work groups or departments
rather than by the larger organization as a whole (Ashford et al., 2007; Jablin, 2001). For
example, in graduate education the academic department, rather than the university as a
whole, is the localized context primarily responsible for socializing graduate students
(Gardner, 2010; Golde, 2005). The adjustment process is presumed to be difficult for new
graduate students and challenges are alleviated through social (interpersonal) interactions
within the local community of fellow graduate students who help one another to adjust
(Austin, 2002; Weidman, Twale & Stein, 2001).
When new graduate students experience an inadequate socialization process they
may leave before completing the degree program. This growing problem of attrition or
completion of graduate programs is considered a crisis in higher education (Brus, 2006;
9
Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Nesheim, Guentzel, Gansemer-Topf, Ross, &
Turrentine, 2006). Thus graduate student socialization has been identified as an urgent
area for further study (Austin, 2002; Golde, 2005; Polson 2003). Graduate students are
more likely to leave if they do not receive consistent relational support from peers and
faculty in their academic departments and this support is especially salient during
socialization (Gardner, 2010; Lovitts & Nelson, 2000; Nesheim et al., 2006).
Some research has found that institutions value older, experienced students
because they tend to perform better than younger students despite having greater
responsibilities and multiple roles (e.g., Carney-Crompton & Tan, 2002). However, the
growing numbers of nontraditional or demographically different graduate students and
their socialization experiences are rarely addressed (Brus, 2006; Polson, 2003). This
thesis responds to this gap in higher education research through exploring how midcareer
transition women graduate students interpret and respond to messages—or
communication—during their socialization into academic departments.
Socialization From the Midcareer Transition Woman’s Perspective
In addition to contextualizing research in specific environments such as traditional
academic departments, scholars have called for greater understanding of how distinct
types of newcomers experience socialization when they have demographic characteristics
different from the norm. We need to understand more about how individual differences
like age, gender, background and career stage influence socialization processes (Allen,
1996; Jablin, 2001; Waldeck & Myers, 2007). The phenomenon of midcareer transition
women leaving their previous jobs and enrolling in traditional graduate study
encompasses all of these factors. While it would be valuable to compare midcareer
10
transition women with their male counterparts or with traditional-aged graduate students
(defined in the higher education literature as between ages 22-29) this study is
intentionally limited in scope. The purpose is to explore the experiences of a specific,
demographically determinant sample.
The midcareer transition woman is an appropriate research subject for reasons
beyond broadening our understanding of graduate school socialization. These reasons
include burgeoning interest on midlife as a time of self-transformation and multiple
transitions for women (Shellenbarger, 2005; Vickers-Willis, 2002). Literature suggests
the midlife woman is likely to be more assertive or proactive in pursuit of her goals in
comparison to how she behaved earlier in life. She typically reassesses her career path
with an interest in balancing multiple identities, priorities, and roles (Josselson, 2002).
Deciding to enroll in graduate school is one result of this midlife reassessment process
and the phenomenon is reported to be increasing among midlife women (Levine, 2005).
Midcareer transition is a term frequently used in the career paths literature (Hall,
1986). Several authors have focused on midcareer transition and related non-linear,
contemporary career paths as growing numbers of established professionals shift careers
(e.g., Arthur, 2008; Hall, Zhu, & Yan, 2002). Ibarra (2003) has called specifically for
understanding more about socialization processes people may experience during
midcareer transition. This thesis responds to her call.
A primary argument underlying this study is that demographic differences like
age, the midcareer stage, gender and life experiences matter and impact the socialization
process into traditional organizations that may not be prepared for atypical newcomers
(Allen, 1996; Hall et al., 2002). Authors in both higher education and organizational
11
communication argue for the importance of understanding diverse or “non-normative”
socialization contexts: all newcomers—and all graduate students—are not the same
(Brus, 2006; Jablin, 2001; Polson, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001).
The newcomers in this thesis voluntarily left employment, which distinguishes
them from other midlife professionals who work full-time, attend school part-time, or
have employers who encourage or even finance graduate study. These graduate school
newcomers in midcareer transition enter academic departments after giving up or
divesting themselves of significant things they accumulated or took for granted over
several years including professional identities, incomes, status, social support and more.
They are in a developmental life phase known for changes in women’s identities, roles,
and relationships, including an increased likelihood of taking risks and expressing their
needs through proactive behavior (Josselson, 2002; Shellenbarger, 2005). Thus in several
respects midcareer transition women graduate students differ from typical 22-29 year old
graduate students. We know little about how midcareer transition women behave in the
context of beginning traditional graduate study and the findings of this research should
shed light on this group of atypical newcomers.
Summary and Assumptions
In summary, this applied phenomenological study was designed to explore a new
research context: traditional academic departments socializing nontraditional, midcareer
transition women graduate students. A key assumption is that traditional academic
departments intentionally or unintentionally socialize full-time graduate students in ways
that may not fit the unconventional, midcareer transition woman student because her age,
life experiences, professional background and career stage — including the identity and
12
status she gave up to enter graduate school at midcareer — make her different from
traditional younger graduate students.
Although socialization is normally an experience of uncertainty, change, shock
and surprise and graduate school adjustment is nearly always difficult (Louis, 1980;
Weidman et al. 2001), adjustment-related challenges may be intensified for a midlife
woman in the traditional academic department context (Anderson & Miezitis, 1999;
Sanders & Nassar, 1993). This thesis is based on the belief that a midcareer transition
woman enters graduate school with a strong age and career-related identity she may seek
to maintain, despite having voluntarily given up her job. She filters her experiences as a
newcomer through all of her past experiences. This study explores how the early
adjustment process unfolds through socialization communication processes in academic
departments that from her perspective may or may not seem to recognize her identity as
an established midcareer professional. It is important to note this research focuses only on
how midcareer transition women perceived or interpreted experiences in their academic
departments. It does not challenge the accuracy of midcareer women’s interpretations nor
does it address the intentions or perspectives of the academic departments.
In addition to broadening our understanding of communication-socialization
processes this study has practical implications for graduate education, i.e., departmental
socialization practices. The following literature review discusses selected work focusing
on communication socialization processes during the organizational adjustment stage.
Relevant interdisciplinary research is included to provide greater context about the
socialization environment (the traditional academic graduate department) and the
individual being socialized (the midcareer transition woman graduate student).
13
Organizational Socialization Communication Processes
Diverse perspectives, inconsistency, shifts in thought and controversy characterize
the vast body of socialization research. Scholars employ numerous approaches in their
work and there is little consensus about theoretical models, terminology or paths to
understanding complex socialization processes (Barge & Schlueter, 2004; Bullis, 1993;
Clair, 1999; Kramer & Miller, 1999; Smith & Turner, 1995). Nevertheless, there is
agreement on the need to understand more about the individual-organization relationship
(Ashforth et al., 2007; Jablin, 2001; Waldeck & Myers, 2007). We begin the literature
review with a general overview highlighting socialization as a communicative process
and the significance of fit to successful integration of a newcomer into an organization.
Communication is central to socialization processes because the organization-
individual relationship develops through a series of messages and interactions (Jablin,
2001). Research on socialization “endures and evolves, because it is theorizing about
fundamentally important, even universal, human experiences and organizational
communication processes” (Krone, 2005, p. 99). We know that socialization into
organizations typically occurs through interaction with peers, i.e., other newcomers or co-
workers, and/or through communication with mentors, superiors, or role models (Jablin,
2001). Socialization is important because a positive socialization experience is more
likely to result in a satisfied individual enhancing and remaining in an organization where
he or she perceives a good fit, whereas a negative experience not only impacts the
individual but could have serious detrimental effects on the organization (Ashforth et al.,
2007; Cable & Parsons, 2001). Perceived fit into organizations during socialization is
particularly relevant to studies of nontraditional newcomers who by definition lack
14
commonalities with others in the organization and/or who may not desire to fit the
organizational norm (Allen, 1996).
The complex, interrelated nature of research addressing fit and other factors
applicable to this thesis is apparent when one considers the large volume of work in other
disciplines that emphasize information exchange, interpersonal relationships and
interactive socialization processes (e.g., Louis, 1980; Jones, 1986; Lundberg & Young,
1997; Reichers, 1987; Weick, 1995). To trace the development and branches of
socialization research relevant to this thesis, I begin with a traditional communication
perspective, particularly that of Jablin (1982, 1987, 2001).
Jablin’s Perspective and Stage Model
Much communication-centered research is influenced by Jablin’s work (1982,
1987, 2001) including his comprehensive developmental stage model of socialization.
Jablin borrowed from theories that originated in disciplines including sociology,
industrial psychology and management. Such earlier socialization research, which
primarily attended to the role of the organization, assumed a one-way process in which
workplaces mold new employees as they are “broken in” or “learn the ropes” (e.g.,
Hughes, 1958; Schein, 1968; Van Maanen, 1978).
By contrast, Jablin advocated a dual-process, reciprocal approach to
understanding the organization-individual relationship. He posited that newcomers
actively engage in communicative processes during socialization, rather than simply
being acted upon by socializing agents. He asserted that socialization is a process
constituted by communication; formal and informal messages are implicit in the
15
developmental period when individuals are introduced and become accustomed to
organizations (Jablin, 1987; 2001).
Jablin’s framework assumes that “outsiders” become “insiders” or full members
of employing organizations as they pass through stages. His model begins with an
anticipatory phase that occurs before a newcomer enters an organization. This stage
represents a life span progression during which the individual learns about work,
including specific jobs, vocations or organizations. Jablin noted that prior to joining
organizations, individuals typically have unrealistic expectations. To the extent
expectations are not met, the next stage of being socialized into the organization is more
difficult for the newcomer (Louis, 1980). Jablin referred to this second stage, germane to
the present study, as organizational encounter/entry and assimilation. This phase, which
has generated a huge body of research, begins with the individual’s first day of work with
an organization.
The encounter stage involves the newcomer actively or passively learning about
her role, while the organization ––intentionally, unintentionally, or both–– socializes her
into the work environment. This transitional stage is known as a period of anxiety,
uncertainty, change, contrast, surprise and information seeking for newcomers who try to
make sense of new environments (Louis, 1980; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979; Weick, 1995).
Jablin proposed that the outcome of the entry/assimilation stage is
metamorphosis, the point at which the newcomer has been assimilated and feels part of
the new organization, i.e., has become an insider as opposed to the outsider she was upon
entry. Some communication work using Jablin’s model and focused on this stage of the
16
process is framed as assimilation research, whereas other authors prefer the umbrella
term of socialization when referring to any or all phases of organizational socialization
(see Barge & Schlueter, 2004; Bullis, 1993; Smith & Turner, 1995). Finally, Jablin’s
model delineates the organizational exit stage, which, as the term implies, marks the
moment when an employee leaves the workplace.
This thesis is concerned exclusively with the narrow time period Jablin framed as
organizational entry or encounter. Among its many labels are the “breaking in” period,
indoctrination, enculturation or adjustment. I have chosen to use the latter term. During
this adjustment stage, the newcomer pays careful attention to messages from
organizational sources to reduce uncertainty as the organization uses various tactics or
strategies to socialize the newcomer (Jablin, 1987; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein,
1979). Most research on this stage, including the present study, assumes organizational
adjustment lasts up to six months, although the length of this significant developmental
period may differ by individual or context (Ashford & Black, 1996; Jablin, 2001;
Weidman et al., 2001).
Jablin summarized what happens via communication during the adjustment stage,
stating that newcomers adjust through “a chain of events, activities, message exchanges,
interpretations, and related processes—essentially ‘links’” in which they come to
understand the new organizational context by building upon what they have learned in
the past and considering how best to adapt to their present or future circumstances”
(2001, p. 759, emphasis added). As will be explained further, the research questions
guiding this thesis explore socialization processes through tracing the chain of events or
links Jablin thus described in his latest (2001) writing on the subject.
17
Although Jablin’s work is a foundation and informs the research questions, this
study incorporates other approaches to investigating socialization, i.e., a constant
comparative method and qualitative thematic analysis. In his 2001 literature review Jablin
acknowledged the limitations of his own stage model and advocated diverse research
methods. He reviewed a large body of work from the 1980s and 1990s that criticized
traditional research and employed interpretive methods. Jablin underscored the need to
continue exploring communication socialization processes in ways that would help us to
better understand the perspective of individuals adjusting to new organizations.
Criticisms of Traditional Research Approaches
Beginning in the 1980s scholars introduced alternatives to traditional quantitative
work that focused primarily on socialization stage models and outcomes. They also
challenged the models directly and advanced qualitative research, including exploratory
studies on how newcomers experienced socialization and on how the process unfolded
differently depending on organizational context and other individual factors (e.g., Allen,
1996; Bullis & Bach, 1989; Clair, 1996; Stohl, 1986; Turner 1999). For example, Bullis
(1993) criticized socialization research in a groundbreaking article on enabling,
constraining, and shifting research perspectives, in which she argued both for and against
traditional socialization theories and frameworks. Bullis called for more work that
explores socialization using existing, traditional models, as appropriate, while also
employing other approaches. Numerous scholars responded to her call, as does this
thesis, which incorporates traditional models within an interpretive approach.
Other weaknesses identified in earlier socialization work included problems with
the linear or predictable progression assumed in socialization stage models and in related
18
conceptualizations of career paths (e.g., Buzzanell & Goldzwig, 1991; Clair, 1996).
Socialization theorizing was criticized for being based on narrow, outdated employment
trends and for assuming uniformity in organizational contexts, the sequence of
socialization events and in newcomers (Allen, 1996; Bullis & Stout, 2000).
In the last decade traditional socialization stage models have fallen out of favor as
a research focus. However, issues related to the adjustment phase continue to be relevant
to most newcomers and organizations. Thus it remains a fertile area of study (Ashforth et
al., 2007). For example, the burgeoning research on proactive newcomer socialization is
based on the organizational adjustment stage, which continues to “provide a useful
heuristic for thinking through the challenges that newcomers (and their employers) tend
to face” (Ashforth et al., p. 9).
Contemporary Research Foci: Proactive Newcomers and Socialization in Context
From the early 1990s to date literature on newcomer proactivity has exploded.
Much of the research was based on the work of Miller and Jablin (1991) who stimulated
hundreds of studies on information-seeking tactics among newcomers (e.g. Forward,
1999; Holder, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Myers, 1998). In the last decade the focus has
shifted to considering individual differences among newcomers’ socialization processes
and proactive behaviors (e.g., Gibson & Papa, 2003; Tidwell & Sias, 2005). Also,
scholars are increasingly interested in how socialization context or content impacts the
interactive socialization process. This growing body of research considers what kinds of
work cultures or socialization tactics help or hinder newcomer adjustment, including how
factors unique to an organization may encourage or predict proactive behaviors in
19
newcomers (Ashforth et al., 2007; Hart & Miller, 2005; Scott & Myers, 2005; Slaughter
& Zickar, 2006).
Socialization researchers are being challenged to integrate their work with related
theoretical concepts, including Person-Organization Fit (Cable & Parsons, 2001) and how
socialization processes unfold in nonstandard work relationships (Ballard & Gossett,
2007; Kim, Cable & Kim, 2005). Consensus has grown that more research in narrow,
applied contexts is required to broaden our knowledge of socialization processes. This is
because: a) socialization can’t be understood well unless one considers who is interacting
with what kind of newcomer/s and under what circumstances; and b) socialization occurs
in and impacts the discrete local organizational environment, such as a work group, team
of colleagues or an academic department (Ashforth et al, 2007; Gardner, 2010; Waldeck
& Myers, 2007).
Finally, recent literature trends underscore what Jablin (1982; 1987) originally
emphasized: socialization is a dynamic, developmental communicative process. Our
understanding improves when research links both what organizations do and what
newcomers do during this reciprocal process. As stated earlier, this thesis is intentionally
limited to only one half of this process, i.e., the newcomer’s perspective of events in
which the organization is equally involved. Although only the newcomer’s interpretations
of “what organizations do” are addressed and the intentions or actions from
organizational perspectives are not explored, it is essential to understand the
organization’s integral role in a reciprocal process. Thus, we begin the next section with
what organizations generally do during the interactive socialization process, based on the
assumption that organizations recognize the need to orient newcomers.
20
How Organizations Socialize Newcomers
Organizations continue to socialize newcomers in traditional ways described in
half a century of research (Hughes, 1958; Jablin, 2001; Jones, 1986; Saks & Ashforth,
1997; Schein, 1968; Van Maanen, 1978). There is no universally accepted definition or
conceptualization of socialization processes, strategies, tactics or messages (Barge &
Schlueter, 2004; Bullis, 1999; Dallimore, 2003; Smith & Turner, 1995). Yet there is
widespread agreement on how organizations and their members attempt to orient
newcomers through information exchange and interactions (communication), based on
thousands of studies across disciplines. Much of the research focuses on socialization
strategies or tactics that are intentional, planned or designed to orient newcomers in a
particular way and/or strategies that are used unintentionally or by default, i.e., when the
organization may not have particular plans for newcomers.
Organizational Socialization Processes: Tactics and Messages
Much of our knowledge about how organizations approach the socialization of
newcomers is based on a frequently used model originated by Brim (1966) and re-
conceptualized various ways by Van Maanen & Schein (1979), Jones (1986), and others.
This model proposes that organizations socialize new employees with six tactics that may
overlap and are practiced along a continuum as follows: a) individual or collective, i.e.,
newcomers may be oriented by themselves or in a group; b) informal or formal, i.e., the
newcomer immediately becomes part of the work group and learns “on the job” or is
segregated from the work group while learning about roles; c) random or sequential, i.e.,
the socialization process unfolds in a haphazard way or in a planned series of stages; d)
variable or fixed, i.e., the organization has no specific time table for newcomer
21
adjustment or delineates a clear time period for orientation and socialization activities;
e) disjunctive or serial, i.e., there is a lack of previous cohorts from which the newcomer
can learn (no one available to “pass down” information), as opposed to others with
relevant organizational experience being available, willing or assigned to help the
newcomer; and f) divestiture or investiture, i.e., organizational members deny or strip
away elements of the newcomer’s identity, in contrast to organizational members
recognizing and confirming the identity, skills and experience of the newcomer.
Although hundreds of studies have investigated socialization tactics and the
model remains robust, research is inconclusive and there is more to learn about how
particular tactics may influence socialization outcomes or newcomer behavior (Ashforth
et al. 2007). Following the lead of Jones (1986) some scholars have collapsed the six
tactics into two general domains labeled as institutional or collective socialization
strategies (encompassing collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture
tactics) and individual strategies (individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive and
divestiture). For example, Cable and Parsons (2001) found that highly institutionalized
tactics were positively correlated to newcomers’ perceptions of organizational fit.
Researchers have emphasized that organizations use both institutional and
individualized tactics in ways that may be idiosyncratic. Tactics grouped together by
Jones (1986) and others (e.g., divestiture and disjunctive tactics vs. investiture and serial
tactics), and labeled as either “individual” or “institutional,” are not always practiced
together. This is especially true of investiture and divestiture, which may or may not
correlate with the other “institutionalized” or “individualized” tactics (Ashforth et al.
2007). For example, the military is known for strong institutional socialization tactics
22
(collective, formal, sequential, fixed and serial) and uses divestiture with new recruits, as
their former identities are stripped away to form them into taking on new identities as
soldiers. Other organizations may use informal, random or variable tactics overall yet
also affirm new members’ prior identities through practicing investiture during which an
established organization member communicates that she values the newcomer’s
incoming identity.
For the purposes of this study we are primarily interested in the influence of
investiture and divestiture socialization tactics as practiced by members of work groups
or departments. Jones (1986) and other researchers including Griffin, Colella and
Goparaju (2000) have argued that investiture and divestiture tactics, specifically,
represent the social (i.e., interpersonal or interactive) dimension of socialization. Griffin
et al. point out that newcomers experience investiture or divestiture in terms of whether
or not they have social support in the organization. The use of investiture tactics
communicate to the newcomer that she is important as an individual and that the
organization accepts her identity. In contrast, when divestiture strategies are used the
newcomer gets the message that she must change or give up her prior identity to fit into
the organization. Griffin et al. further note that in some organizational contexts where
collective or institutionalized tactics including investiture are absent, newcomers may be
forced to be more proactive as they must engage in a self-socialization process.
Korte (2009) recently affirmed the importance of what he termed “relational
processes” and “social tactics” in successful newcomer socialization. Korte also
advanced the argument that socialization occurs in discrete work groups or departments,
and that practices can vary considerably within the same organization. Korte interviewed
23
30 recently hired engineers representing different departments in a global organization
that employs thousands of engineers. Korte found that the quality of relationships within
work departments, specifically newcomers’ perceptions of key interpersonal interactions,
was the single most important factor in the socialization of new engineers. The most
satisfied newcomers felt they had received valuable support through helpful and
respectful interactions with co-workers and managers. In contrast, the most frustrated and
unhappy newcomers expressed how dissatisfied they were with their new engineering
jobs due to lack of social support, which they attributed to receiving no interest, respect
or attention from others in their department.
Overall, there has never been consistency in the vast body of socialization
research, nor in findings related to specific socialization tactics as originally outlined by
Brim (1966) and re-conceptualized numerous ways since. This lack of consistency is not
surprising because socialization experiences vary considerably from the perspectives of
unique types of newcomers and research has been done in widely divergent settings.
However, there are some areas of agreement in the literature. We do know that
socialization tactics — especially the “social” tactics of investiture or divestiture — are
enacted via communication, i.e., information exchanges between the organization (or its
members) and the newcomer. Jablin’s (2001) inclusive term encompassing socialization
tactics, communicative events and information from the organization is “socialization
messages.” Socialization messages initiate the chain of events explored in this thesis.
Organizational Socialization Messages
Socialization messages have been defined or identified in a number of ways
(Dallimore, 2003; Jablin, 2001; Turner, 1999). Organizational newcomers learn culture or
24
role-related information from official, formal, or planned events/sources, i.e., collective
or institutional strategies, as characterized by Jones (1986). Newcomers also adjust
through observation, stories and informal encounters with others in the organization from
which they receive advice or messages that seem relevant. Common sources of
socialization messages in traditional employment settings include the newcomer’s
supervisor and co-workers, upper-level management and written documents provided by
the organization (e.g., training manuals). People also pick up significant cues about the
culture and their status in ways that can be both mundane and subtle, such as noticing
how others are addressed, workspace organization, the use of humor, nonverbal
communication, who is included in departmental functions and more (Falcione & Wilson,
1988; Hess, 1993; Louis, 1980; Jablin, 2001).
Several scholars have explored specific types of socialization messages including
speech acts, discursive formations, and other communicative events they argue are
particularly significant to newcomers. These include stories (Brown, 1985), memorable
messages (Barge & Schlueter, 2004; Dallimore, 2003; Stohl, 1986;), colloquialisms
(Clair, 1996), turning points (Bullis & Bach, 1989) and critical incidents (Gundry &
Rousseau, 1994; Korte, 2009; Lundberg & Young, 1997; Teboul, 1997).
Jablin’s 2001 review broadly characterized socialization messages as
communicative events, activities and interactions. He acknowledged the diverse range of
messages and concluded that something meaningful to a newcomer––i.e., perceived as
pertinent to her place or value in the organization although not necessarily an explicit
action––may be construed as a “message.” This study uses Jablin’s broad 2001 definition
through identifying and gathering all types of communicative events or organizational
25
socialization messages relevant to the research context and purpose. (See Appendix B
for how organizational socialization messages were defined and identified in this thesis.)
For nearly three decades researchers have pointed out the need to highlight
individuals’ socialization experiences and perspectives (Allen, 1996; Bullis & Bach,
1989; Jablin, 1982, 1987, 2001; Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987; Stohl, 1986). Despite the
large body of research responding to these calls we need to learn more about what
newcomers typically do and how they feel when entering and adjusting to organizations.
The next section reviews socialization processes from the perspective of the newcomer
during the organizational adjustment stage.
How Newcomers Interpret and Respond to Socialization Messages
Beginning in the 1980s socialization research gradually shifted from an emphasis
on the organization to considering the individual newcomer’s point of view. The
newcomer’s sensemaking, or perceptions of new environments, is based on cues or
socialization messages from a number of sources (Jablin, 2001). However, newcomers do
not enter organizations as blank slates; they bring prior experiences and professional
identities with them. These imported identities also influence how newcomers make
sense of an unfamiliar environment (Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995).
Hundreds — if not thousands — of studies have affirmed newcomer uncertainty,
stress or anxiety during adjustment and that individual newcomers respond and attempt to
cope through engaging in information seeking (Ashforth et al., 2007; Jablin, 2001; Miller
& Jablin, 1991). Beginning in the 1990s researchers turned their attention to variations in
newcomer behaviors, including ways newcomers interpret and respond proactively to
socialization messages beyond the expected information seeking. This study assumes that
26
the stress experienced by midcareer transition women as newcomers in graduate school
as well as their responses and ways of being proactive are unique.
Proactive Newcomer Communication in Context
Among the large, growing body of literature on proactive newcomer
communication, recent work highlights the influence of localized socialization contexts
on newcomers’ behavior and/or distinct proactive behaviors associated with individual
newcomer characteristics. When newcomers enter organizations they do more than ask
questions to clear up confusion and in some contexts they may be required to ask more
questions than in others (Griffin et al., 2000; Jablin, 2001). Across disciplines scholars
recognize that most newcomers must engage in at least some self-socialization through
information seeking and thus are forced to be proactive, especially in work environments
where little orientation or information is offered to them (Ashforth et al., 2007). Grant
and Ashford (2008) assert that proactive behavior is increased by ambiguity, including
confusion about roles, procedures and expectations (see also Weick, 1995).
Miller and Jablin (1991) were instrumental in initiating hundreds of
variable/analytic studies focusing on information seeking, the most universal type of
proactive newcomer communication. Ashford and Black (1996) built upon Miller and
Jablin’s work, defining newcomer proactivity as including seven components:
1) information seeking to learn how the organization operates; 2) feedback seeking to
inquire about one’s work performance; 3) relationship building to connect positively with
others; 4) general socializing or participating in social events; 5) networking or
socializing with people outside one’s work group; 6) job-change negotiating to modify
27
job-related tasks or expectations, and 7) positive framing, or trying to view things in an
optimistic way.
Saks and Ashforth (1997) called for research that addresses what organizational
socialization programs or tactics are most likely to facilitate newcomer proactivity. In
response to this and other calls from the 1990s to date scholars have proposed various
models and/or definitions of proactivity at work, proactive behavior, proactive newcomer
communication or proactive socialization (e.g., Scott & Myers, 2005). As is the case with
other concepts and theories related to socialization, there is no consistent definition of
proactive newcomer communication. This study was guided by a definition informed by
Myers and McPhee (2006) who characterized proactivity as “the initiative to work to
obtain desired goals” (p. 446). Therefore proactive communication was defined broadly
as: communication initiated by the newcomer during adjustment and targeted to
organizational sources to achieve the newcomer’s immediate goals during graduate study
and/or her related future career goals. Appendix B further explains how proactive
communication was defined and identified in this thesis.
Research has found that various individual or demographic attributes including
newcomer gender, race, past work experience, age, and personality traits influence how
they interpret and respond to socialization processes when they join organizations
(Finkelstein, Kulas, & Dages, 2003; Gibson & Papa, 2000; Saks & Ashforth, 1997;
Tidwell & Sias, 2005). In short, newcomers are not all alike, but it is useful to look for
trends in groups of newcomers that share attributes. Just as socialization is better
understood when embedded in localized contexts, we learn the most about socialization
processes when distinct characteristics of newcomers being socialized are considered.
28
A localized research context that to date has not been studied through the lens of
these combined factors is the traditional academic department. Although no two
academic programs, disciplines or departments are the same in their cultures or
socialization practices, the higher education research on graduate student socialization
offers relevant information on how traditional departments generally socialize students
into master’s or doctoral programs.
The Research Context: Graduate Student Socialization
Graduate school — which may last for several years — is a transitional period
during which students are socialized into academic disciplines, professions and
departments (Golde, 2005; Weidman et al., 2001). This thesis is concerned with the
discrete time period of adjustment when graduate students enter their departments and
navigate their first semesters. Orientation practices offered by departments may vary
greatly by disciplines and department cultures yet there are longstanding academic
traditions and expectations applicable to most graduate programs (Austin, 2002).
Adaptation to graduate study comprises activities beyond official orientation meetings or
reading departmental handbooks; these activities include important interactions with
others in the department (Brus, 2006; Myers, 1998; Polson, 2003).
Overall, the research on graduate student socialization published during the last
decade is alarming in tone and highlights widespread inadequate practices and negative
outcomes, including high attrition rates framed as a crisis in higher education (Council of
Graduate Schools, 2004; Golde 2005; Nesheim et al., 2006). Lovitts and Nelson (2000)
argue that high attrition rates are attributable to students’ negative experiences when they
begin graduate school, including lack of integration into the social structures of graduate
29
programs. They stated, “Students leave less because of what they bring with them to the
to the university than because of what happens to them after they arrive” (p. 50). Across
disciplines around 57% of graduate students drop out before completion of their degrees
and other scholars have linked this problem to poor socialization and bad fit (e.g.,
Gardner, 2010; Golde, 2005).
Trends indicate graduate students are increasingly diverse with growing numbers
of older nontraditional students and more women entering graduate school (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). Higher education research has found that
orientation programs may be especially inadequate for nontraditional, older students who
bring a different set of expectations, knowledge and needs to universities (Austin, 2002;
Brus, 2006; Nesheim et al. 2006; Polson, 2003). As will be discussed further, most
departments officially or unofficially assume that graduate students are socialized
primarily with the cohort (other graduate students) with whom they are likely to bond and
share some characteristics, including age. This thesis argues that one reason traditional
socialization practices may be inadequate for nontraditional older students is that they are
unlikely to feel similar to and connect with peers who are half their ages.
Graduate school adjustment is consistently described in the literature as a highly
interactive, social process during which integration into department cultures and forming
relationships with others in the department are keys to student success (Weidman et al.,
2001). Research has affirmed that positive outcomes including higher completion rates
and students who perceive their departments favorably are linked with strong
departmental support from both peers (the graduate student cohort) and faculty (Gardner,
2010; Polson, 2003).
30
Weidman et al. (2001) proposed a comprehensive model of graduate student
socialization cited often in the literature. They concluded that peer climate is a critical
aspect of the culture graduate students encounter: “the cohort influences the learning
process, opens support mechanisms, and enriches the experience socially and
emotionally” (p. 62). The authors state that when fellow graduate students are
demographically similar, peer bonding and support is more likely to be strong and their
adjustment to graduate study is easier. In addition to addressing the significance of peer
support, Weidman et al. discuss what graduate departments attempt to accomplish via
socialization. They refer to students as “neophytes” whose socialization outcomes are the
acquisition of sufficient knowledge, skills, and values for successful entry into a
professional career. Adjustment to a subordinate student role is necessary for progression
to professional status and an individual student’s personality or stage of development
may require abandonment of previous roles and identities, which may cause internal
conflict. This “abandonment of previous roles and identities” is consistent with
divestiture, a socialization tactic described earlier in this literature review.
Although Weidman et al. only briefly introduce socialization tactics as
conceptualized by Van Maanen and Schein (1979), they make points relevant to this
thesis. They note the importance of investiture for successful transformation of the
student into a new professional academic role and argue that this typically occurs along
with serial socialization as faculty train, mentor and act as role models for graduate
students. They also state that faculty members may not readily accept new nontraditional
students, because they are not like their predecessors or other students in the department.
In such cases, disjunctive socialization and divestiture may be more likely to occur as
31
there are no role models for the nontraditional student and/or her characteristics seem
incompatible with what is expected in the department.
Weidman et al. emphasize that no two graduate student socialization experiences
are identical. Nevertheless, the normative process is to pass through traditional rites of
passage (some originating hundreds of years ago) that bring students to a higher level of
personal and professional maturity. In order to mature, new graduate students rely on
faculty and older peers as role models. Interaction with role models in the academic
department is such an important part of the socialization process because the graduate
student’s new identity as an academic is built around learning from and following the
lead of her superiors (i.e., more experienced faculty members who explain how things are
done and act as mentors).
The Weidman et al. report assumes a homogeneous population of traditional,
younger graduate students being assisted or mentored by older or more experienced
department members. Clearly, aspects of this model do not fit experienced graduate
students who entered professions years ago and who are already “mature” by most
definitions. Such students might be older than the department members who may or may
not mentor them. Presumably older students have also reached stages of personal or
professional development that will require divestiture of prior roles and identities above
and beyond what is normally expected of all graduate students. Midcareer transition
women students, in particular, are likely to have strong age and career-related identities
they may not wish to give up upon entering graduate school.
This thesis, like Brus (2006) and Polson (2003), challenges traditional graduate
student socialization practices in that they fail to value and address the specific needs of
32
nontraditional graduate students. Brus highlights changing demographic trends in
graduate schools including increasing numbers of older women students who are
challenged to balance school with other life issues and who don’t fit the normative profile
for graduate students. She argues that such students often perceive a “chilly climate” in
their graduate departments and that the “one-size-fits-all” model is inadequate in
providing the academic and social support that will increase satisfaction and retention
among nontraditional students (p. 43).
Polson (2003) emphasizes that graduate student role socialization is a primary
responsibility of academic departments, while noting that most departmental orientation
programs are not designed for the needs of older students. Like Brus, Polson notes that
nontraditional graduate students’ life circumstances make their adjustments to graduate
school more difficult. These circumstances may include juggling multiple roles (i.e.,
providing materially for self or family, elder care, and other “adult” responsibilities).
Polson argues that there is a need for better departmental support as nontraditional
students deal with possible role conflicts and the burden of extra responsibilities not
shared by typical younger graduate students. She recommends that department members
must do a better job of communicating to older graduate students that their experiences
and opinions matter; however, she does not specify how academic departments should
accomplish this.
Although Polson’s article does not incorporate socialization tactics, the idea that
departments must communicate to students that they “matter” is consistent with the
investiture socialization tactics discussed in the previous section. To review, when an
organization practices investiture tactics through members’ interactions with the
33
newcomer, the newcomer’s unique identity and experiences are being recognized and
affirmed. Finally, Polson underscores that graduate student demographics are
increasingly diverse, and require “sensitive, flexible, and creative” responses from
graduate departments if institutions wish to retain and earn the loyalty of mature, high-
performing students.
Summary and Research Focus
The higher education literature on graduate student socialization is incomplete. It
marginalizes or does not adequately address the experiences and needs of increasing
numbers of nontraditional, older graduate students and no study explores the experiences
of midcareer transition women specifically. However, the higher education research
informs this thesis as follows: a) it affirms the centrality of communication in
socialization (i.e., social support or integration, interactions, and relationships with
faculty and other graduate students); b) it suggests that investiture tactics, especially,
might improve socialization experiences for nontraditional older students by academic
departments recognizing the unique “adult” identities of such students (Polson, 2003); c)
it notes that normative graduate student socialization processes require a divestiture of
prior identities in order to take on a new academic identity; and d) such divestiture is
likely to be experienced more strongly by nontraditional students who enter departments
where they don’t fit the norm (Weidman et al, 2001).
In sum, the higher education literature associates inadequate socialization with
alarming graduate student attrition rates and indicates further study is needed if graduate
departments wish to socialize and retain increasing numbers of older nontraditional
students (Brus, 2006; Council of Graduate Schools, 2004; Golde, 2005; Lovitts &
34
Nelson, 2000). This thesis explores the experiences of a distinct and under-studied type
of older nontraditional student labeled the midcareer transition woman graduate student. I
argue that the midcareer transition woman graduate student begins graduate school as an
atypical, proactive newcomer unlikely to fit the mold in her academic department.
The Newcomer: Midcareer Transition Women Graduate Students
This section discusses selected work to shed light on characteristics and
experiences of midcareer transition women graduate students. The limited research on
this group also frames my argument for labeling thesis participants atypical, proactive
newcomers in the context of being socialized into traditional academic departments.
As briefly discussed in the introduction of this chapter, the midlife period for
women and the midcareer transition phase in a professional’s career are both associated
with self-directed, proactive behavior (Hall et al., 2002; Josselson, 2002). At midlife, a
woman is typically focused on integrating aspects of her identity and she desires work-
life balance, including a career that reflects how she sees herself during a stage known for
transformation (Vickers-Willis, 2002). This thesis argues that the midcareer transition
woman graduate student is by definition proactive because she chose to give up her
previous established, fulltime career to attend graduate school in anticipation of a new
career. She is also atypical as a newcomer to fulltime graduate study because job or
career-related losses she voluntarily incurred immediately prior to starting graduate
school make her different from traditional graduate students in their 20s.
Little is known about how midcareer transition women behave in and what they
experience in traditional graduate departments. No research addresses their socialization
into graduate study specifically. We need to understand more about how their life stage,
35
career stage and age-related identity may (or may not) impact their adjustment. The
limited literature on midcareer transition women graduate students summarized here
highlights some unique challenges these women experience that are relevant to this
thesis.
Graduate students have been the subjects of hundreds of studies. However, as
addressed in the previous section, the literature focuses almost exclusively on traditional
graduate students between the ages of 22 and 29 and overlooks the perspectives of older
students (Brus, 2006; Carney-Crompton & Tan, 2002; Polson, 2003). Furthermore, the
higher education literature does not adequately address the needs of distinct groups of
older students, e.g., distinguishing male students from female students or looking at those
in midcareer transition, specifically. The research fails to recognize that nontraditional
midcareer transition women graduate students may be entering graduate school with
distinct motivations, characteristics, and experiences. The few studies that narrowly
describe the midcareer transition woman’s experience call for the need to learn more
about how women adjust to academic departments after choosing to leave their longtime
jobs and give up previous lifestyles and identities in pursuit of a career change.
Sanders and Nassar (1993) conducted an exploratory study on master’s level
social work (MSW) students who had previously held careers yet chose to enter social
work as a new profession. As graduate faculty members who interacted regularly with
their subjects, the authors were keenly aware of how experienced nontraditional women
students differed from their younger cohort. They interviewed mature women (mean age:
43) in their master’s programs and described their subjects as “‘atypical’ in terms of their
36
social and psychological maturity” (p. 108). Participants responded to questions about
factors related to their career change and graduate student life.
Sanders and Nassar found that many subjects experienced a “profound identity
crisis” (p. 109) when they entered the MSW program that they associated with a sudden
change and loss in status (e.g., from successful entrepreneur or professional to the role of
subordinate student). The researchers found that the oldest members of the graduate
student cohort reported the most difficulty adjusting to the student role. The authors
argued for graduate programs to differentiate such students’ needs from the needs of
traditional graduate students.
Another exploratory study by Anderson and Miezitis (1999) described the
perceived stress and life satisfaction of ten women who had been active in established
careers prior to beginning graduate study. These women were in graduate school to begin
new careers. As expected, the researchers reported that their respondents experienced a
lot of stress while adjusting to graduate school. The authors found that participants who
had formerly occupied positions of authority reported the most stress related to policies,
expectations and academic hierarchies they perceived both as too rigid and as designed
for younger, traditional graduate students.
Dissertation research by Spaite (2004) examined how participants perceived their
graduate educations and role transitions when they decided to pursue new careers as
professional psychologists, in particular how subjects’ previous career identities
influenced their transitions to new identities. Spaite found that women coped most
effectively with the stresses related to demanding graduate programs when they were able
to rely upon multiple identities and roles. This dissertation was accessible only in the
37
form of an abstract so limited information was available. However, Spaite’s finding about
seasoned graduate students depending on multiple identities to cope with stress seems
connected to Josselson’s (2002) assertion that midlife women seek to integrate multiple
identities and roles rather than giving up one identity for another.
Literature Summary and Research Questions
Knowledge from diverse disciplines and perspectives plus personal experience
informs this thesis. Higher education scholarship highlights the applied research context
(graduate student socialization in traditional academic departments). Through the
literature on midcareer transition women graduate students we know something about
characteristics associated with thesis participants, whom I label atypical proactive
newcomers when they begin graduate school. The communication socialization literature
provides the theoretical framework and research questions.
To understand how midcareer transition women experience adjustment into
academic departments through communication socialization processes, decades of
literature suggest that we must: a) explore socialization from the individual’s point of
view (Allen, 1996; Clair, 1999; Gundry & Rousseau, 1994; Louis, 1980; Stohl, 1986);
and b) look at socialization as a developmental interactive process, considering how
various strategies, tactics or messages used by the organization influence perception of fit
and patterns of newcomer interpretation, response and proactive communication (Cable
& Parsons, 2001; Jablin, 1987, 2001; Jones, 1986; Korte, 2009; Reichers, 1987) .
The higher education literature on graduate student socialization is incomplete
and does not address what happens when a midcareer transition woman enters a
traditional academic department as a new graduate student. The organizational
38
socialization research, while rich and deep, continues to overlook early socialization
experiences from perspectives of newcomers in contemporary contexts that do not fit
outdated assumptions or limited models (Allen, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2007; Waldeck &
Myers, 2007).
This thesis argues that life stage (age), career stage and pre-entry identity or
status-loss issues are central to understanding how midcareer transition women
experience their organizational adjustment-socialization process into traditional graduate
programs. My assumption is that characteristics these women share impact their
interpretation and responses to socialization messages from academic departments, as
well as their proactive behavior. It is expected that a distinctly different socialization
process will occur because prior to entering graduate school the midcareer transition
woman graduate student had substantive life experiences and made significant life
decisions (including leaving behind her previous career and related roles). These
differences distinguish her from typical younger graduate students. A useful way to
explore how midcareer transition women experience socialization is through the lens of
communication processes she recalls from her graduate department adjustment.
This study starts with socialization messages the midcareer transition student
receives in her graduate department. They begin a chain of events during the critical
organizational adjustment period through which a newcomer comes to understand her
role, the organizational culture and how well she fits (Ashforth et al. 2007; Jablin, 2001;
Louis, 1980). These messages initiate the newcomer’s interpretation and response
according to Jablin’s (1982) observation that newcomers interpret new work
environments primarily from formal and informal communication received from others.
39
This study assumes that, like all newcomers, the midcareer transition woman will
try to make sense of messages and is likely to respond with uncertainty and information
seeking, a nearly universal type of proactive communication. However, unlike other
newcomers, she may interpret messages, respond to them, and behave proactively in
unique ways because she does not fit the typical profile in the context of traditional
graduate study.
The three research questions guiding this study assume a progression or dynamic
unfolding of socialization-communication processes, beginning with the subjective
meanings newcomers make of socialization messages. They are as follows:
RQ1: How do midcareer transition women graduate students interpret
organizational socialization messages during organizational adjustment?
RQ2: How do midcareer transition women graduate students respond to
organizational socialization messages during organizational adjustment?
RQ3: How do midcareer transition women graduate students engage in proactive
communication during organizational adjustment?
The next chapter outlines the methods I used to explore 20 midcareer transition
women’s interpretations, responses and proactive communication patterns during
adjustment to graduate study.
40
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Research Approach
The research questions in this study were answered using an interpretive
phenomenological interviewing approach. Phenomenology investigates lived experience
through describing individual recollections and personal accounts and derives meaning
from these descriptions (Van Manen, 1990). The research design was built on Jablin’s
(1987; 2001) conceptual framework of communication socialization processes and
responds to numerous calls to examine socialization from the perspective of individuals
and/or in contexts that do not fit established models or assumptions (e.g., Allen, 1996;
Ballard & Gossett, 2007; Clair, 1999; Polson, 2003).
The goal was to extend the socialization literature through exploring a localized
context to unearth authentic stories of subjective experiences (Ashforth et al., 2007;
Silverman, 2001). Accordingly, this exploration focused exclusively on 20 midlife
women participants who chose to begin traditional full-time graduate study at an age and
career stage that was atypical. This thesis distinguished full-time, traditional graduate
education from part-time, distance learning, or other specialized curricula that may have
been created specifically for mature adults who are working or have other responsibilities
precluding full-time attendance. Traditional graduate departments and programs are not
defined explicitly in the higher education literature. However, there is an implicit
assumption and understanding that such programs and related departmental policies are
designed for traditional graduate students, generally defined as between 22-29 years of
age (Brus, 2006; National Center for Education Statistics, 2007).
41
To keep this study focused I explored what this transitional time of graduate study
adjustment meant through a specific lens: participants’ interpretations and responses to
organizational socialization messages. I also wished to understand how they engaged in
proactive communication within their academic departments. This was based on an
assumption that midcareer transition women were likely to behave proactively, and the
need to address an area about which we know little in the growing proactive newcomer
literature (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Josselson, 2002; Levine, 2005).
Recruitment and Description of Participants
To identify mid-career transition women graduate students, I used a purposive
sampling strategy (also known as criterion sampling), plus snowball sampling. Purposive
sampling identifies subjects representative of a special population and snowball sampling
allows volunteer respondents to suggest other possible study participants (Babbie, 2004;
Miles & Huberman, 1994). The criteria to identify mid-career transition women graduate
students was informed by the career stages work of Hall (1986) and Ibarra (2003). The
sampling frame was set as follows:
1. Self-identified, established career women who were employed full time for 10 or
more years prior to graduate school enrollment.
2. Enrolled in graduate school for reason(s) related to mid-career transition (planning
a different career).
3. Completed at least six months’ full-time graduate study in traditional academic
departments within the three most recent academic years (i.e., the years closest to the
data collection period of summer and fall, 2006).
42
In addition to meeting the above eligibility requirements, participants identified
themselves as willing to engage in an in-depth e-mail interviewing process and to be
available by phone, if necessary.
Participants were recruited in August 2006, using multiple-channel networking
(word of mouth, phone, and the Internet, including the National Communication
Association’s Communication Research and Theory Network [CRTNET] service). After
volunteers were pre-screened for eligibility, 23 signed consent forms and began the
interviewing process. Three chose to withdraw from the study, which left a remaining
sample of 20. Table 1 on the following page depicts the make-up of the sample.
The mean age of participants when they started graduate school was 42.3 years.
The sample represented a variety of living arrangements, degree programs, and
geographic locations in the United States. Participants attended graduate school in 15
states: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania (3), Ohio
(4), Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico, North
Dakota, and Montana. Ten respondents had relocated to new communities for graduate
school, including two who moved across the country (e.g., from the West Coast to New
England). Ten women were Ph.D. students; one was pursuing a law degree (JD). The
remaining nine were pursuing master’s degrees.
Participants’ earlier professional careers were also varied. Most held management
or leadership positions prior to beginning graduate study, including one publishing
company president, a corporate human resources director, a city planning engineer, an
officer in the military, and a news bureau chief for one of the nation’s largest newspapers.
The majority of participants (75%) planned to transition their career into academia.
43
Table 1 – Sample Description
TABLE 1 - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Pseudonym Age Previous fulltime career
or position New career choice following graduate school Degree program
Amanda 41 Manager/public retirement system
Professor or consultant PhD
Ann 39 Newspaper reporter/editor
Professor MA
A. Hawken 48 Community College Administrator
Professor PhD
Bess 41 Environment/Safety Consultant
Consulting/Teaching MA
C. Sunset 52 Marketing Director Professor PhD Doria 45 University administrator Professor PhD
Elizabeth 37 President of publishing firm Professor MA
Emily 41 County Detective/Major Crimes
Professor PhD
Fiona 42 Military officer/Air Nat'l Guard
Adult learning/development/teaching M Ed
Helen 47 Director, Information Technology
Professor PhD
Karin 39 Television producer/director
Consultant to TV industry/professor PhD
Lydia 37 Program administrator/State DOT
Professor PhD
Mabel 43 Corporate Director/materials
College instructor MS
Pandora 47 International news bureau chief Professor PhD
R. Hat 46 Corporate HR Director Professor PhD
n = 15 (75%) with professor or teaching role as primary or secondary new career choice
Estelle 35 National sales manager Speech Pathologist MA G. 40 City Planning Engineer Marketing Consultant MBA
Mary Alice 34 Systems Analyst/Software consultant
Law JD
Rainey 40 Writer/Editor Marketing/Corporate Communications MA
Sophia 52 Secondary education/counselor
Non-profit Executive Director MA
Mean age 42.3
Age Range 34 to 52
n = 5 (25%) with plans to enter a new career outside academia (following graduate school)
44
During their first semester of graduate study, most (85%) participants were
married or in a committed relationship. Two married respondents lived alone during
graduate school adjustment (their spouses remained in other states). The two single
respondents also lived alone and had moved to new states to begin their programs.
Sixteen research participants lived with others. Of these, 15 cohabited with spouses or
partners and four had at least one child living at home. The one divorced respondent lived
with a roommate during her first semester of graduate study.
Data Collection: The Interviewing Procedure
Phenomenological studies use in-depth interviews to provide portrayals of lived
experience and then offer insightful reflections on the meanings of those complex
experiences (Van Manen, 2002). I used computer-mediated communication in the form
of electronic interviews (hereafter referred to as e-mail interviewing) to elicit detailed,
deep descriptions of participants’ graduate school adjustment. This method was suitable
to the goals of this study for several reasons, including the desire to interview a national,
verifiable sample from diverse institutions within a short time frame and at minimal
expense (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002).
E-mail interviewing is noted for being efficient and effective (Meho, 2006). It has
been successfully employed in numerous studies (e.g., Creswell, 2002; Dallimore &
Mickel, 2006; McAuliffe, 2003). Morgan and Symon (2004) found that e-mail interviews
provide many advantages, especially for samples of populations who are familiar and
comfortable with using e-mail such as the participants in this study who were career-
oriented professionals before entering graduate school.
45
A comprehensive review of this rapidly growing research method highlights
several benefits of e-mail interviewing. These advantages include gathering data quickly
from geographically dispersed participants, allowing conversations to continue over a
series of days (encouraging enhanced reflection and further probing into participants
responses), and the end result: a transcript in participants’ own words (Meho, 2006). This
low-inference data (i.e., verbatim transcripts) is guaranteed in e-mail interviews because
respondents provide the text for analysis, which eliminates the risk of transcription error
(Silverman, 2001). An accurate transcript of participants’ accounts is also especially
appropriate to a phenomenological research approach that attempts to capture the essence
of lived experience using participants’ own words (Van Manen, 2002).
Upon initiation of e-mail interviewing I set the context for the study, emphasizing
that I wanted participants to focus on what they experienced in their first semesters of
graduate school within the boundaries of their academic departments. I also asked the
respondents to choose pseudonyms. Thereafter, I addressed and identified them by their
pseudonyms.
Because this study examined a context that had not been researched previously,
the guiding research questions represented a best guess of what might be revealed in the
data (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). As indicated in the literature review, the research
questions were derived from Jablin’s (2001) theoretical framework and reflected a
developmental communication socialization process that unfolds in a fairly predictable
way, yet I remained open to finding unanticipated results, with the intent of answering the
original questions broadly (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002).
46
Interview questions were sent in a series of sequential e-mails, at the rate of one to
three questions per message. This method ensured that participants met study parameters
and clearly understood the questions. Initial questions were designed to determine study
eligibility, set the context, and introduce topics related to the research questions. I had
pre-tested my interview questions with five pilot interviews (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002).
During and following this process I received feedback from pilot participants that boosted
my confidence in question clarity and wording. I used a semi-structured interview
schedule (Appendix A) that included 14 questions and instructions such as:
What graduate student orientation-related information do you remember receiving when you started? Tell me about messages or interactions that stood out for you during this adjustment period. How did you respond to the messages you received (and/or interactions you experienced) at this time? Can you think of other factors that influenced your feelings about your role in your graduate department during this adjustment period (or, is there anything else you wish I had asked, or that you wish to share)?
Although I sometimes changed the order or adapted wording to fit with the flow
of respondents’ answers, I made sure that each interviewee addressed every question
(King, 2004). I remained open to other issues respondents brought out in interviews,
because my goal was to collect rich data encompassing the complete range of adjustment
experiences (Van Manen, 1990). The full raw data set consisted of 232 single-spaced
pages (10,456 lines) of printed e-mail interview transcripts to be interpreted. At this
point, I began data analysis using a recommended detailed, line-by-line approach as my
first step to reduce data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The data analysis and interpretation
process is explained in the following section.
47
Data Analysis and Interpretation
The goal was to identify common patterns of: a) socialization message
interpretation; b) responses to these messages; and c) incidents of proactive
communication in which participants engaged during first semesters of graduate study.
To accomplish this, I analyzed interview transcripts following procedures recommended
by Miles and Huberman (1994) and Strauss and Corbin (1998). I used a constant
comparative method, explained by Strauss and Corbin as an interpretive nonmathematical
data analysis process designed to discover concepts and patterns in the data, followed by
arranging findings in a manner that makes sense theoretically.
This required multiple readings and rounds of data analysis, undertaken in four
general stages: a) data reduction and preparation for coding, based on theoretical
sensitivity; b) organizing or segmenting reduced data into units of analysis (thought units)
and coding or labeling the thought units; c) clustering thought units into categories (or
themes); and d) using a thematic analysis process to identify the primary themes for the
entire data set. The following sections explain these steps in more detail.
Data Reduction and Theoretical Sensitivity
I prepared data for coding by combining each respondent’s individual e-mail
messages into one document or “transcript” identified by her pseudonym. Early on in the
data collection process, I began to make notes in text margins as I recognized material
that seemed related to research questions or was most emphasized by respondents
(Shank, 2006). My process of filtering raw data for relevant concepts was guided by
theoretical sensitivity, or being sensitive to material I might expect to find, based on
established research and theory. This data reduction method is recommended as an early
48
step in qualitative research (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Although I also read for and paid
attention to unexpected information in the interview transcripts, my data reduction
process was informed by definitions used in earlier socialization research. Appendix B
explains this process in detail and includes the information I used as sensitizing concepts.
First, I dissected raw data to identify pre-existing categories derived from
socialization theory and the localized context I had set for this research. I used sensitizing
concepts or definitions from Jablin’s (2001) broad conceptualization of socialization
messages, responses and categories of proactive communication. I also remained open to
other examples of messages, responses, and newcomer proactivity as described in studies
published after 2001 (e.g. Scott & Myers, 2005).
As the analytical starting point, socialization messages were identified in order to
trace participants’ impressions or conclusions about these messages. This required
several readings to locate references to socialization messages, defined broadly as all
types of communicative events relevant to the research context and purpose, i.e., any
message from the academic department that made an impression on the newcomer
because she perceived it as relevant to understanding the new culture or her role.
I highlighted every line of text that contained something related to socialization
messages and interpretations, responses or proactive communication that were linked to
these messages. In addition, I highlighted any other factors emphasized as integral to
respondents’ first semester transition. Appendix B explicates this process in more detail,
including my initial definitions, guidelines, and exemplars. This multi-step process of
data reduction resulted in 106 single-spaced pages, or 4808 lines of text highlighted for
the next stage: coding and segmenting by thought unit.
49
The Coding Process
After data reduction or narrowing the data set to what is of interest (Keyton,
2006), I identified which data I would code. The next step was to choose a unit of
analysis (i.e., a standard, well-defined element within the text). Because my intent was to
capture deep descriptions of lived experience and complex communication socialization
processes Jablin (2001) described as a linked chain of events, I chose the thought unit as
my unit of analysis. This has been employed in hundreds of studies that use thematic
analysis and/or analyze interview text to explore socialization, individual-work
relationships and messages (e.g., Canary & Canary, 2007; Donohue & Druckman, 2009;
Jehn & Shah, 1997; Mickel, Dallimore, & Nelson, 2008; Souza, 1999).
The thought unit was defined as a complete statement of any length, ranging from
a phrase to a string of sentences or paragraphs, focusing on a cohesive topic,
communicative event or main idea. This is consistent with the definition used by several
researchers (e.g., Atwater, Waldman, Carey & Cartier, 2001; Canary & Canary, 2007;
Dallimore & Mickel, 2006). After reorganizing and piecing together data into coherent
thought units, 519 thought units were identified and coded for the next stage:
organizing/clustering into themes.
Clustering Data Into Categories
Following identification of thought units, I generated a list of 57 codes or labels
and organized each by their apparent relationships to the three original research questions
plus an important “other” category. My procedure for axial coding, i.e., categorizing open
codes into groups or themes, was influenced by Boyatzis (1998) who lists the attributes
of good codes, including: a label, a definition of what a theme concerns, a description of
50
how to recognize when themes occur, and theme qualifications or exclusions, which may
be demonstrated by exemplars. Thus I created my axial codes (clustered categories),
defined them, and set parameters for applying them. At this stage I needed to prioritize
and reduce categories, and I used a thematic analysis process to do so. My codebook
incorporating the reduced categories that resulted in final themes appears in Appendix C.
The themes are explained in detail in the following two chapters of this thesis.
Thematic Analysis and Generation of Meaning
Interpretive thematic analysis is an effective way to organize or generate meaning
from a large amount of data, especially when attempting to preserve each participant’s
lived experience or language (Ezzy, 2002; Shank, 2006). I applied Owen’s (1984)
thematic analysis as I reached the final stage of reviewing categories and narrowing them
to the most significant, over-arching themes or findings. Owen’s method has been
employed in numerous socialization and other organizational communication studies
(e.g., Clair, 1996; Dallimore, 2003; Kramer & Noland, 1999; Lui & Buzzanell, 2004;
Souza, 1999; Zorn & Gregory, 2005). I used Owen’s criteria of repetition, recurrence,
and forcefulness to identify primary themes for the data set by cross-referencing all 20
participants’ most-emphasized themes.
Repetition refers to words or phrases repeated within the text and related to
research questions or emerging themes. Recurrence is noted when identical or similar
meanings show up throughout multiple participants’ accounts (i.e., different words used
to express the same theme). Forcefulness indicates emphasis or importance. In addition to
obvious emphasis through language (e.g., “absolutely the most important factor was...”),
forcefulness was shown through bold, underlined or italicized words, use of all capital
51
letters, exclamation points, or other unusual punctuation. I confirmed indications of
forcefulness with respondents to ensure things such as capitalization or punctuation, were
not merely features of e-mail programs or of my computer printer.
In the interest of themes best fitting Owens’ criteria, I limited final themes
described in Chapters 3 and 4 to concerns or patterns of response most predominant
across the data set and meeting all three criteria (Buzzanell & Turner, 2003). I was
careful to confirm my perceptions of participants’ areas of emphasis. I used established
methods to check the credibility of my findings, as the next section describes.
Credibility of Findings and Member Checking
In their widely cited work Miles & Huberman (1994) address the credibility of
qualitative research findings in terms of whether findings have “truth value” or make
sense to both the participants studied and to the reader. Shank (2006) affirms that
verification of meaning is fundamental to good interpretive research. The authenticity or
plausibility of findings are enhanced by rigorous data analysis procedures as well as by
checking in with participants (often referred to as member checking) to confirm whether
the researcher’s interpretation of findings matches participants’ experiences.
As a means to ensure the credibility of my findings I employed a member
checking process through which I engaged with respondents regularly and rigorously by
e-mail, checking my interpretations as data was being gathered (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002).
For example, upon receipt of an e-mail answer to a specific question, I e-mailed back to
confirm my understanding of the answer and/or to request more information. Following
the initial confirming/clarifying e-mail, I typically responded with another follow-up
52
e-mail message in which I requested affirmation that I “understand correctly” or “have it
right.” Participants would respond with comments such as “exactly,” “you are correct in
your understanding,” or “yes, I’m confirming you have it right!” This process of constant
e-mailing back and forth occurred with all 20 participants during data collection and up to
72 separate e-mail messages were exchanged between me and each participant.
Additional member checking, to confirm my assumptions and/or to collect more data,
occurred via telephone with 25% of participants. All five women with whom I had
in-depth confirmatory phone conversations agreed with my interpretations of their
experiences, which boosted my confidence in my conclusions (Silverman, 2001).
I used other recommended practices for enhancing the credibility of qualitative
research as listed here, to bolster the authenticity of my data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,
2000; Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Shank, 2006; Silverman,
2001):
1. Pre-testing the interview schedule, to check that questions were being
interpreted consistently by participants
2. Addressing data dependability and integrity by clarifying where data
originated and tracing it via an audit trail that showed specifically how it was
collected and used
3. Seeking enhanced believability of findings, through maintaining extended
contact with participants and noting findings that indicated more than one
participant experienced the same phenomena
4. Organizing data in various ways, including within case and cross case
research displays to discover or explain patterns in the data
53
5. Taking care to reduce bias inherent in exploring a process with which I had
personal experience, recognizing there is no such thing as “neutral” research.
To control for my own position and interpretations, I put data aside for long
periods (several months) and reviewed it anew, repeatedly. I checked in with
participants again for validation of their interpretations and intentionally
sought information in the data that differed or contrasted sharply with my own
experiences to ensure I was not overlooking anything.
Summary
An in-depth phenomenological e-mail interviewing process was used to capture
authentic descriptions of participants’ lived experience as they recalled their adjustment
to graduate school. A constant comparative data analysis method and thematic analysis
were applied to generate understanding —from the perspectives of 20 mid-career
transition women — of their socialization communication patterns in traditional academic
departments during their first semesters. In the next chapter, an explanation of results
from the thematic analysis process is presented to further demonstrate how meaning was
generated from participants’ descriptions of their experiences (Van Manen, 2002).
54
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Introduction of Themes
As discussed in the literature review, socialization communication for newcomers
is a dynamic, complex process of sensemaking, reacting, responding and interacting
while attempting to understand and fit into a new organization and role. The guiding
research questions were designed to discover common ways twenty midcareer transition
women experienced a discrete period through tracing the socialization-communication
processes they recalled from first semesters of graduate study.
Research questions were informed by work of Jablin (1987; 2001). The first
research question asked how do midcareer transition women graduate students interpret
organizational socialization messages during organizational adjustment? The second
question asked how do midcareer transition women graduate students respond to
organizational socialization messages during organizational adjustment? Finally, research
question three asked how do midcareer transition women graduate students engage in
proactive communication during organizational adjustment?
The research questions are answered from a perspective appropriate to the
phenomenological interviewing approach described in the previous chapter. Findings
reflect participants’ own words and the full story as they shared it, i.e., the “lived
experience” of their socialization-communication processes (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002;
Van Manen, 2002). Data consisted of e-mail responses to questions related exclusively to
participants’ perceptions of their experiences when they started graduate school. For
example, they were asked: What orientation-related information do you remember
55
receiving? Who were the significant people (and their roles) who influenced you at this
time? How did you respond to the messages you received (and/or interactions you
experienced) at this time? (See Appendix A for interview schedule.)
Although findings are addressed by research question and are described separately
in this chapter, they overlap and are connected, as explained by Jablin (1987; 2001) who
characterized the developmental nature of communication-socialization. To review, he
described the process as a series of communicative events, message exchanges,
interpretations and responses through which newcomers attempt to make sense of
unfamiliar organizations by calling upon their past experiences while simultaneously
coping with present circumstances and thinking about the future. This thesis assumed that
past experiences would influence the socialization process strongly because of midcareer
transition women’s established age and career-related identities.
This study identified aspects of the socialization process unique to midcareer
transition women in the localized, academic department context of beginning fulltime
graduate school. Findings also highlighted the interrelated nature of socialization
processes through revealing extra-organizational factors unique to a group of experienced
newcomers who entered graduate study in the midst of multiple transitions related to a
midcareer change (Ibarra, 2003; Josselson, 2002). This thesis was designed to reveal and
understand commonalities in experiences based on assumptions that participants began
graduate study as atypical newcomers who had voluntarily given up previous careers and
who had proactive orientations. Thus, findings are organized based on the commonalities
or the six most prevalent, global themes across the data set. These themes were identified
56
using Owen’s (1984) criteria of repetition, recurrence and forcefulness, described in
Chapter Two.
Primary themes related to the research questions as follows: a) two perspectives
through which participants interpreted socialization messages (department fit and identity
losses); b) two patterns of response to these messages (interactive stress reactions and
internal success strategies); and c) two contrasting ways they engaged in proactive
communication in their academic departments during adjustment (positive proactive
communication and sink or swim survival communication). A description and examples
of each theme follows, organized by research question.
Interpretations of Socialization Messages
The first research question asked how participants interpreted a broad range of
socialization messages they received from their graduate departments. A newcomer’s
interpretations of earliest organizational encounters are highly influential in setting the
stage for her relationship with the organization. They initiate reactions or responses from
the newcomer, which may include information seeking and other forms of proactive
communication with the intent to clarify roles or advance in the organization (Jablin,
2001).
In this study organizational socialization messages were defined broadly as all
communicative events the newcomer perceived as relevant to her organizational role(s)
and/or her learning about the new culture (Jablin, 2001; Louis, 1980; Smircich & Calas,
1987; Weidman et al., 2001). Participants reported a wide range of socialization
messages and information from a number of sources. However, specific messages from
sources outside of the academic department were outside the scope of this study. (See
57
Appendix B for parameters I used to determine socialization messages.) In brief,
socialization messages encompassed the full continuum of collective and/or
individualized departmental socialization tactics (Jones, 1986) including planned, official
information exchanges (or encounters) as well as unplanned, unofficial or implicit
information exchanges.
In their retrospective accounts of first semester experiences, participants
expressed their interpretations of departmental socialization messages in terms of what
was happening to them both within and outside their academic departments. They
emphasized a multi-layered adaptation process of simultaneously navigating significant
changes in lifestyle, roles and personal/professional identity while adjusting to the
graduate department (Brus, 2006; Josselson, 2002; Spaite, 2004). The women
interviewed for this research changed their lives to begin graduate school and their
message interpretations were filtered through an awareness of these changes, including
what they had given up. Several years of having worked in professional organizational
contexts distinguished midcareer women from younger, traditional-aged graduate
students in their departments. A comparison to past professional experiences in other
organizations is inherent in midcareer transition women’s interpretations and responses to
socialization messages in the new organizational context of graduate study (Louis, 1980).
Participants’ interpretations of socialization messages focused upon their personal
assessments of how well they fit or found their place in the academic department, and
external identity loss issues related to the midcareer transition that brought them to
graduate school. External identity loss issues impacted internal departmental adjustment
in significant ways. Themes of loss and trying to find fit reflected the concerns foremost
58
in participants’ minds while concurrently adapting to new lifestyles, roles and
organizational environments. The two predominant and interrelated issues newcomers
attempted to resolve during their adjustment to the graduate department were: a)
Department Fit, i.e., to what extent she experienced a sense of belonging and insider
support; and b) Identity Losses, i.e., the impact of what she gave up to attend graduate
school in pursuit of a new career, including status, roles and rewards associated with her
former career. The two themes of Department Fit and Identity Losses are described in the
following sections. The participants in this study self selected their pseudonyms at the
beginning of data collection. These pseudonyms are used to identify the source of each
exemplar and appear in italic type for ease of identification (e.g., Pandora).
Department Fit
As indicated in the literature review, issues of fit are fundamental to
organizational socialization and reflect a core assumption of this study: when atypical
newcomers enter traditional organizations that socialize newcomers in standard ways, the
process may not unfold as expected (Allen, 1996; Golde, 2005; Jablin, 2001). Midcareer
transition women beginning graduate programs in established academic departments do
not fit the organizational norms and have distinct needs differentiating them from
traditional aged students (Polson, 2003; Sanders & Nassar, 1993). Although they were
not asked explicitly about fit, participants were asked to explain how they felt during
their first semesters of graduate study and how they would describe their place in relation
to their academic departments (see the interview schedule in Appendix A).
In this thesis department fit was defined along three dimensions, informed by
relevant interdisciplinary literature on graduate department socialization, person-
59
organization fit, communication socialization processes, and organizational cultures (e.g.,
Austin, 2002; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Jablin, 2001; Smircich & Calas, 1987).
Department fit issues encompassed each participant’s interpretation of her difference or
similarity to others in the academic program in which she had enrolled. Several
participants responded specifically that they did not fit the mold in their departments.
Hence, this theme’s label was derived from participants’ words.
The three dimensions of department fit are explained further in Appendix C. They
are: a) culture fit, e.g., fit with department rules, status or hierarchy issues, and
communication climate; b) role fit, e.g., fit with departmental expectations of a first-
semester graduate student, class participant, teaching assistant, novice researcher, scholar,
or aspiring professional; and c) relational fit and insider support, e.g., fit with others in
the department, including finding peers or connecting with department members who
recognized the newcomer’s needs and offered instrumental help.
Not surprisingly, given their nontraditional life stage upon beginning graduate
school and the uncertainty newcomers experience as they try to fit into organizations, all
20 participants emphasized department fit in their accounts. Good fit was suggested by
positive descriptions or a sense of belonging or congruence with the department culture,
role(s) or relationships with others in the department. For example, feeling comfortable
with informal dress and the communication climate suggested good fit with the culture.
Finding one’s place as a scholar in the discipline suggested fit with the graduate student
role of novice researcher, and connecting with a faculty member who offered insider
support suggested good relational fit.
60
In contrast, bad fit was suggested by negative descriptions or a sense of not
belonging or incongruence with the academic culture, role(s) and relationships. For
example, struggling with departmental practices drastically different from past
experiences, not feeling comfortable in a new teaching role, or failing to bond with or get
help from anyone in the department indicated bad fit.
The most important dimension of fit emphasized in participants’ accounts was
relational fit and specifically the role of insider support. Most participants found it
difficult to connect or identify with others in their departments due to being older than
their cohort (i.e., fellow graduate students) or faculty. A majority (70%) noted they felt
out of place with other graduate students who were much younger.
Another pattern in the data was particularly significant because of how much it
influenced interpretations of good or bad department fit: this factor was the presence or
absence of insider support from faculty. Over half (12) participants in this study reported
bad fit overall in their departments and emphasized a lack of insider support. In contrast,
the eight participants who reported good fit overall underscored the instrumental role of
faculty support. We begin with examples of bad fit in academic departments where
participants felt they did not belong with other students, faculty, or both.
Bad fit and lack of insider support
Midcareer transition women who experienced bad fit described their lack of
connections and relational fit in terms of feeling isolated, unwelcome, awkward,
different, lonely or uncomfortable in departments accustomed to younger students.
Common characterizations of this theme in participants’ own words included feeling out
of place or not belonging. For example, C. Sunset felt disconnected from both her
61
graduate student cohort and faculty. She reported that she felt shocked and frightened,
like an alien from another planet who was “completely clueless and out of the loop… I
felt like an outsider and that I did not belong there… and to make matters worse, I think
the faculty agreed that I didn’t belong.”
Several participants noted they had little in common with other graduate students
because of age disparities. Among the 14 respondents who emphasized being older than
fellow graduate students, some mentioned they were old enough to be their parent. Ann
reported she hated being assigned to a “squirrely, childish master’s student office” with
fifteen immature 22-year olds who behaved like something out of Animal House or Old
School.
Mary Alice did not fit well with her younger cohort, who surprised and annoyed
her with their casual attitudes. She felt “old and out of place” compared to other students.
I assumed that my classmates would be like the grad students I worked with when I was an undergrad in physics — smart, interested in what they were doing, highly motivated… It was disappointing. I thought I'd finally be in a class with grownups and instead I was in a class with a bunch of kids. … And use of language — using "like" and "you know" in class discussions. Drove me up the wall.…
Emily also noticed how different she was from other graduate students, especially
since she was old enough to be their mother:
I was the oldest… they went out drinking and partying … I was in grad school to learn and earn the degree, not to socialize. I did not want to appear like a snob – but I also did not want to go to smoke-filled bars and talk to people I did not know while a band played in the background… I did that in the 1970s. Although the data included numerous accounts highlighting the youthfulness of
other graduate students, anecdotes about bad relational fit and lack of support from
faculty were emphasized more. The issue of faculty support made the biggest difference
in terms of participants’ overall assessments of department fit. Faculty and other older,
62
paid department members had official authority to help, advise or direct graduate
students. Many participants struggled to get this help and felt no one in the department
noticed or cared about them.
R. Hat explained she endured a full semester of ambiguous academic expectations
including multiple fruitless encounters with a department head and professors she
described as “disorganized” and “of no help whatsoever” as she tried to figure out
program requirements. Other participants were officially assigned faculty mentors or
temporary advisors, but found their interactions with them to be awkward and unhelpful.
Doria characterized her department as a “sink or swim environment” that offered
no orientation and was “sorely lacking in communication.” However, graduate students
were “randomly assigned” advisors and she looked forward to having things clarified in a
meeting with her advisor, including recommendations about courses. She was
disappointed:
The advisor I was assigned was not talkative. She seemed curt and hurried. Our ideas of an advisor meeting were very different… she did not ask me anything about my background and experience. Doria had also hoped her unanswered questions would be addressed during a
“meet and greet” session announced by a faculty member during which new graduate
students were supposed to get to know faculty and one another. She eagerly anticipated
this meeting and drove to campus on a day she would not normally be there, which was
inconvenient and cost her valuable time and additional expense.
… when I got to the classroom there was a note on the door saying that it had been cancelled. I was ANGRY that in the communication department no one thought to send an e-mail … so that we didn’t WASTE OUR TIME coming on to campus… finding parking… which you have to pay for … I thought the way the cancellation was handled was INCONSIDERATE. We all had to come to campus to find out it was cancelled!
63
Like Doria, other participants experienced bad fit because the department did not
value them or failed to recognize their professional backgrounds. Many noted that faculty
taught as if all students were neophytes with no experience. One participant, G., actually
did quit her program at the end of the first semester because interactions with faculty led
her to conclude it was a bad fit for what she wanted and needed to learn:
Professors did not acknowledge that the classes were not composed entirely of 23 year olds… being in that environment just wasn’t for me… the program I had enrolled in was not adequate for individuals with significant professional and life experience.
G. noted that the department was supposed to pair graduate students with mentors, but “I
never got my mentor because I asked for one who had more experience than me!”
C. Sunset felt angry and further alienated from her department when a much
younger faculty member failed to acknowledge the valuable life and career backgrounds
of the three older students in a class of 14. The professor was discussing a topic with
which C. Sunset had a lot of professional experience.
I remember … she talked to us as if we were children, telling us … how to act. I’m older and more experienced than she is, and I was deeply offended… I have been … speaking at professional conferences longer than she has been alive! In contrast to participants who lacked insider support, the eight participants who
experienced good department fit and felt more at home were able to make key
connections in the department and formed supportive, helpful relationships with faculty.
Feeling at home - finding relational fit and insider faculty support
Adjustment experiences were not all grim. When department fit was good it
appeared to be driven by early insider support, especially from faculty who treated the
newcomer as a respected peer. Participants paid careful attention to what department
64
members did or did not do to help them, specifically. Some respondents noted how
fortunate they felt to have practical assistance and support from department members as a
whole when they started their programs. For instance, Estelle expressed her admiration
and gratitude for faculty, administrators and staff whom she found to be “extremely
approachable.”
I “lucked” into a great program… They were always willing to discuss courses, requirements and the details that have arisen. I think the professors… are extremely talented … providing me with a fantastic life experience! Particularly noteworthy is that insider support from faculty was automatically
available to the eight respondents who emphasized the importance of this issue. They
reported they did not have to ask for this help. It was freely offered and in some cases
faculty members were proactive on behalf of participants, going out of their way to ease
the socialization experience. This is in sharp contrast to those who experienced bad fit
and were unable to get help from faculty even when they tried, often repeatedly.
Within the first two weeks of the semester Ann reported that her department head
recognized she was not going to “survive” in a shared graduate student office with 22-
year olds. Without being asked, he arranged to move her into a “grown up” office closer
to faculty where she was “immediately much happier.” She believed he did this because
he was a smart man who could see her discomfort and “he wanted to retain me as a
graduate student.”
Lydia’s first semester account emphasized a pervasive “sense of community,”
including the presence of other older students and faculty around her age with whom she
related as peers from her first day on campus. Because she was the only participant who
emphasized both faculty and fellow graduate students in her department being similar to
65
her, Lydia was a unique case in this study. Lydia described a “very collegial”
environment where she was consistently recognized as an experienced adult. She noted
that faculty played an instrumental role in setting the inclusive tone. She emphasized that
she realized her experience was unusual in that there were several other older
nontraditional graduate students in her cohort. People went out of their way to offer Lydia
assistance, including her graduate program director. He had welcomed her and her
husband when they moved from another state for her to begin graduate school:
I quickly developed a friendly relationship with the graduate program director, a longtime faculty member who is only a year older than I am.… … I felt that he really extended himself and his friendship.
She underscored what she most appreciated about her first semester - an environment of
colleagues upon whom she could depend:
I think it’s testament to the sense of community in the program that I could readily voice …concerns, without hesitation, and have a number of people willingly offer their suggestions and relate their own experiences.
Like Lydia, Elizabeth recalled being treated as a respected adult peer by the faculty
in her department, and this bolstered her through times of doubt.
Everyone was extraordinarily friendly to me… I got the feeling that they saw me as being very professional and competent (perhaps because of my age… or because of my professional experience). If they hadn't treated me so well, I don't know that I would have succeeded. …They took time in responding to my questions. They felt motivated to help me get answers to questions when they didn't know the answers. They also included me in professional conversations and when we met at parties, I felt like they talked to me as their equal Fiona shared an anecdote of how a professor extended his support when she was
feeling overwhelmed with anxiety on her first day as a graduate student. This support
made a significant difference and set a positive tone for her first semester. Fiona reported
that she felt distant from other graduate students with whom she had little in common.
66
She also felt inadequate and unprepared compared to the apparently confident students
she observed around her as they waited for class to begin. She was wondering whether
she had made a mistake by enrolling in her program.
… I remember … waiting for the instructor to show up … I sat far away from the rest of my classmates… feeling so anxious… and just as I believed I was not intelligent enough to even sit in this class, my professor showed up. He placed a hand on my shoulder and said, "Come join us." I was overwhelmed with emotion and began my first class teary-eyed.
I asked Fiona to clarify how she felt about her professor’s gesture and she responded,
“absolutely reassured.” She added that prior to this act—which she perceived as genuine
and welcoming—she had been considering leaving the class and opting out of the
program, as she felt she did not fit in well with other students in her program. Fiona
highlighted what she called a department-wide “student-centered approach” and how
much she appreciated the reliable support she was offered by this professor, and by all
faculty, during her entire first semester.
… my advisor and other teachers practiced what they preached, so to speak. They believed in setting the example for their students and were consistently accessible for questions, concerns, etc.
Although participants had different experiences in terms of good or bad
department fit, they had similar experiences in terms of identity losses associated with
giving up their previous careers. The impact of these losses and how they influenced
department adjustment — independent of good or bad fit — was one of the most
significant findings unique to midcareer transition women graduate students.
Identity Losses: Another Layer of Complexity
Midcareer transition women changed their lives and left behind important,
established aspects of their identity to enter graduate study. For many respondents, these
67
changes impacted their first semesters significantly. Respondents influenced most by
identity loss issues were constantly aware of what they gave up to be in graduate school.
Specifically, they chose to let go of established careers and job titles plus the tangible and
intangible things that went along with those careers. These losses included financial
independence (or being an equal partner contributing materially to their household), and
the respected, experienced adult professional status associated with management and
leadership positions they formerly held. Concerns about these identity losses were
literally described as inseparable from their adjustment to the new graduate student role.
They were another layer or lens through which they interpreted and responded to
departmental socialization messages.
The new identity of being a “graduate student” instead of a fulltime professional
impacted participants’ lives in significant and complex ways. A core assumption
underlying this thesis is that a midcareer transition woman experiences her socialization
into graduate school in unique ways because she entered graduate school after several
years during which she built a career and took on multiple adult life responsibilities and
roles (Brus, 2006; Josselson, 2002; Polson, 2003).
These adult roles included being a financial contributor to a family or household.
Most participants were married or in a committed relationship. Of this group the majority
depended on partners for financial support and/or for managing a greater share of
household responsibilities or roles they had handled independently or jointly prior to
attending graduate school. Husbands and partners provided critical financial support and
were credited for freeing up time for the student to concentrate on her new graduate
student role. For example, Estelle underscored her reliance on her husband:
68
My husband is EXTRAORDINARY in terms of … support… I wouldn’t have been so successful without him. He wanted to know how things were going and provided positive feedback.
Bess shared how her partner made it possible for her to complete the semester:
The biggest issue I faced was juggling my roles … with my grad student responsibilities. I relied heavily upon my partner to free me up from household responsibilities since I wasn’t able to fulfill both sets of needs (school and home). …In fact, my partner picked up so much slack, I would not have been able to finish that first semester if he hadn’t helped me out in so many ways. In addition to depending on supportive partners to compensate for lost income or
time, many participants emphasized challenges related to professional identity losses.
These included loss of status, professional perks, self worth, confidence, community,
respect, and voice (i.e., freedom to speak out, or to be one’s authentic, preferred, adult
self in the new environment). These losses made the adjustment to graduate school
difficult for 16 (80%) of participants; thus, even when department fit was good, some
women felt upset or experienced additional stress during their first semesters because of
what they had given up.
Elizabeth’s early experiences in the context of her department were mostly
positive. She felt she was treated as a competent and experienced adult professional, in
addition to being helped and welcomed by faculty. However, her first semester
adjustment was clouded by the difficulties of making the “huge” identity and lifestyle
change she had chosen, including moving out of state and leaving the business she had
once led. Throughout her narrative Elizabeth offered details about the identity she had
left behind, comparing her former high status with her low status as a graduate student:
…. I missed that lifestyle … I really felt as though it had been ripped away from me… I was no longer the president of a publishing company. I no longer had business cards, a nice office, employees to delegate work to …. now… I was just a grad student like so many others. I felt like I may as well have been 22 years old
69
with no professional experience or competencies… I remember when I met people and they asked me what I did for a living, I felt it necessary to say what I used to do first… It was important that they see value in me because I guess I didn't feel very much self worth as a grad student.
Helen explained at length the painful process of feeling forced to suppress
everything she knew and had accomplished during a remarkable career. She felt that
entering graduate study required that she return to a childlike status:
… my first semester was an adaptation process in the extreme, seeking to find that balance of how much of my previous identity, career, and successes that I could claim, and how much I had to cut loose. This was really the most difficult part of the whole process… Most frustrating was the sense that my identity (“who I am”), then, must be tightly coupled with what I’m doing professionally (“what you do”). Thus, losing my professional status somehow also meant losing my adult status, and this was just jarring!
Sophia emphasized how her first semester was a time of feeling unsettled and in
emotional upheaval after leaving a community of professional colleagues who saw her as
a leader. Her story represents how some participants experienced profound identity losses
plus poor department fit, an especially negative combination:
I was unprepared for the emotional impact of leaving behind my wonderful connections… and career. I was in culture shock, I suppose, because the adjustment was multidimensional. I was not ready for this! I had not considered just what I would be facing, starting over so to speak as a woman in her 50s. It did not help when I realized the school was not equipped to deal with older students and faculty did not treat me as an equal… I was used to being a mentor and leader and suddenly my opinion did not matter, even with all my relevant experience.
Summary of Themes Related to Interpretations of Socialization Messages
Midcareer transition women graduate students interpreted organizational
socialization messages in terms of department fit and the identity losses they experienced
in order to begin graduate school. Most participants found it difficult to connect or
identify with their departments and even when they did, they still experienced blows to
their identity related to their lower status student role. Their positive or negative
70
interpretations of department fit combined with the impact of challenging identity loss
issues influenced their reactive and strategic responses to socialization messages, as will
be discussed in the next section.
Responses to Socialization Messages
Midcareer transition women graduate students’ responded to organizational
socialization messages in two main ways: a) interactive stress reactions, defined as
passive or non-instrumental responses to ease anxiety; and b) internal success strategies,
defined as instrumental responses through which participants empowered themselves.
(See Appendix C for further information on how response themes were defined.) The first
theme of interactive stress reactions underscores decades of findings that newcomer
socialization into organizations — and into academic departments specifically — is
stressful (Jablin, 2001; Louis, 1980; Weidman et al., 2001).
Because stress responses are nearly universal during organizational adjustment,
the description of this theme is limited here to how midcareer transition women students
responded in ways that may differ from how more traditional graduate students would
respond to stress. This theme highlights communicative responses to stress, the most
recurrent type of response across the data set (Owen, 1984).
Interactive Stress Reactions
Interactive stress reactions encompassed non-instrumental ways of coping with
the intent of alleviating intense emotions or anxiety. All 20 participants mentioned stress
in their accounts. As participants dealt with their concerns related to department fit and/or
concurrent identity loss issues, they typically concluded they were overwhelmed. The
word “overwhelmed” was one of the most frequently mentioned in the data set and
71
“stressed out” was high on the list as well. What makes this group of nontraditional
newcomers different from other, traditional aged overwhelmed graduate students is how,
to what extent and with whom they communicated to manage their stress.
The most common reaction to socialization messages mentioned in the data set
was to vent or “blow off steam,” emphasized by 19 out of 20 participants. However only
six (30%) of participants reported that they “complained,” “commiserated” or “shared
concerns” with fellow graduate students. Of these six who commiserated with the cohort,
three of them noted that they typically did not interact with fellow graduate students in
other contexts (with the exception of the classroom). Kvetching inside graduate
departments with other students was sometimes described as being coupled with humor,
e.g., “laughing over our shared misery,” or “misery loves company.” For example, R. Hat
explained “we were all in the soup together and tried to help each other cope as best as
we could.”
In contrast to limited descriptions of commiserating with graduate students, 90%
of participants shared numerous examples of venting with significant others outside the
department, or at home. This was three times more common than blowing off steam in
the departmental context. Most participants did not identify with younger graduate
students nor did they feel comfortable sharing negative feedback with faculty. Therefore,
talking with trusted outsiders was often described as necessary to help with a difficult
adjustment in departments where they felt little connection with insiders or felt the need
to remain silent about their discontent. This pattern seems unusual in that the literature on
graduate student socialization highlights the importance of peer climate, emphasizing a
72
norm of regular social interaction among graduate students to share stress and concerns
(Weidman et al. 2001).
Participants emphasized how they sought reassurance, escape from department
“politics,” or someone who would listen to them “moan and groan” about what was
happening in graduate school. They relied a great deal on friends, a husband/partner,
other family members, or professionals in helping roles (e.g., a minister, therapist, and a
long-time professional mentor). For instance, Pandora noted “my poor husband heard a
lot about this,” referring to her feelings of “being hazed” and negative messages she was
getting in her department that made her feel ignored. She purposely chose not to share her
feelings with others in the department. G. credited her husband and her teenage daughter
with helping her to “endure” the first semester through regular conversations about what
was happening in classes she felt were “totally inadequate” for someone with her level of
professional experience. Karin depended heavily on regular long, encouraging talks with
a former professional mentor to help her process negative department experiences.
The stress, anxiety, and overwhelming feelings experienced by participants were
constant throughout their first semesters. While some passively accepted it and dealt with
it through interactive stress reactions and venting, others were determined to adapt and
decided to change the only thing they could control: themselves. When they recognized
poor fit or worried about whether they could succeed in their new identity as a graduate
student, they moved into action through internal success strategies.
Internal Success Strategies
Internal success strategies involved re-positioning one’s self, re-framing a
problem, and/or implementing a behavioral change to facilitate success. These proactive
73
decisions and behaviors were enacted independently, i.e., they were not interactive or
dependent on cooperation from others, nor were they intended to change anything in the
graduate department. Among the 14 respondents who described these strategic decisions,
only three of them reported good department fit and 11 reported bad department fit.
Whether or not they fit in their departments, those who implemented internal success
strategies were explicit in explaining their motives: they were determined to succeed in
graduate school, on their own terms, and they created plans to reach their goals.
I originally coded these themes as “doing it my way” because participants shared
how they took charge of their programs through making the best of bad fit, overall, or
coming up with strategies to turn around a particular issue causing them concern. The
women who implemented internal success strategies worked consciously to change
attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, or perspectives to bolster confidence, or chose a self-
empowering “keep the eyes on the prize” approach to getting through difficulties. They
also relied upon their past experiences to come up with a plan that would work.
Success strategies most often originated in a participant’s recognition that she did
not fit in her department and she had to do something about it. For example, C. Sunset
described navigating an environment that was “frightening” at times, but instead of
giving up she took action, ultimately turning the situation around via success strategies.
Nothing changed in her department, but she consciously changed the ways she thought
about her doctoral program. After describing several “disturbing” encounters and
situations where she felt insulted, alienated and ignored by faculty, C. Sunset explained
how she responded:
But… it’s people and situations like that… that get me going, and … I decided it’s up to me to take responsibility and to make my program … work for me. I
74
was not going to allow anyone’s behavior in the department get to me! I can’t depend on others to make me happy… when I make up my mind to do something – and tell many others that I am going to do it – I will do whatever it takes to not let myself or those others down – it is a strategy that has served me well.
Pandora had an impressive record of achievement in her career prior to beginning
graduate school. She felt her professional accomplishments were “pointedly ignored” in
her department and she refused to believe messages about what kinds of research first
semester graduate students should (or should not) do. She was confident that her
background, expertise and contacts could benefit the department and gave her advantages
compared to other graduate students.
When she realized that “no one cared” and that “people were recognized only for
what they accomplished in classes and by such standards as conference paper
acceptances” Pandora decided to “prove a point” to her department and to set her own
standards for success. She noted that while in her department “I mainly observed and
kept a low profile” but she was always thinking of her future as she independently
pursued conference and publication opportunities to show she could accomplish more
than less experienced graduate students.
I became determined to excel in this new challenge, submitting papers to conferences as soon as I finished them for classes, for example. I also insisted on doing research that took advantage of language skills and contacts that others did not have. I tried to force professors to recognize that my previous experience had value and had prepared me to undertake research that most of them could not. In the end, I proved the point to myself and if no one else could see it, it did not matter.
Other participants enacted self-directed learning strategies. These included doing
additional reading, initiating better study habits, or making changes to improve academic
performance, ease fears, or compensate when they felt overwhelmed and/or
75
underprepared. For instance, Emily created a way to learn what she needed to know
because she lacked the background coursework that had been taken by her graduate
student peers, whom had learned more up-to-date theory from their recent undergraduate
or master’s programs. Emily’s proactive strategy was rooted in a fear of failure after early
negative feedback on her performance.
I felt out of the loop – and stupid. … if you can imagine driving along a road at night and your headlights illuminate a deer in the road … I … had that stunned look the whole first semester. My papers (and the grades I received on them) reflected that same helpless feeling. I knew that I would have to ‘catch up’ … and I did. My days were often 12 hours long and I lived in the library… but the strategy worked... I began to be overly organized and I outlined every book we read (10-12 per course). I typed up my notes through the early hours… I could not let my guard down or I might fail.
Elizabeth was among the three respondents who experienced good department fit
and also enacted internal success strategies. She shared that although she was excited by
the challenges of graduate school she was also afraid of being unable to manage her
workload. Because it had been so painful to lose her former high status identity as a
successful business owner, she was highly motivated to succeed in her new role as a
graduate student. To deal with her anxiety she tried to stay ahead in her courses and
worked constantly. “I thought that if I could spend enough time studying, reading, writing
papers, I could be successful.”
Summary of Themes Related to Socialization Message Responses
Midcareer transition women graduate students responded to organizational
socialization messages — influenced by their interpretations of good or bad department
fit and challenging identity losses — with non-instrumental stress responses, especially
venting outside their departments, and/or with internal success strategies designed to help
76
them succeed in graduate school on their own terms. Also, most participants either freely
chose or felt forced to engage in proactive communication in their departments, as
explained in the next section.
Proactive Communication Themes
Proactive communication was defined as targeted communication initiated by the
newcomer to achieve her graduate study goals or future career related goals. For instance,
information seeking to reduce uncertainty is among the most common types of proactive
communication (Jablin, 2001; Miller & Jablin, 1991). Proactive behavior is anticipatory,
strategic and action oriented. Proactive newcomers in organizations show initiative
because they are motivated to change something (e.g., improve their situation in the
organization or improve the environment). Proactive communication is intentional and
focused; it requires thought, time and energy (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Fifteen (75%) of participants engaged in proactive communication. The most
common behavior was information seeking about everything from how to receive a
teaching assistant paycheck to how to connect with the department’s most respected
faculty member in order to reach a long-range career objective. The most striking
findings related to proactive communication were: a) how participants framed these
interactions in sharply contrasting positive or negative ways; and b) how the negatively
framed proactive communication was reported only by participants who had experienced
bad department fit.
In some cases, proactive communication was positive and something participants
wanted to pursue. In other instances, applying exclusively to participants who felt they
did not fit in their departments, proactive communication was negative, a cause of
77
additional stress, and perceived as unwanted but necessary. The following sections
describe these disparate views of proactive interactions, with the first labeled positive
proactive communication and the latter labeled sink or swim survival communication.
Positive Proactive Communication
Positive proactive communication was an intentional, interactive activity that
participants wanted to pursue. They felt comfortable and confident engaging in this
communication. As discussed briefly in the literature review, proactive behavior is
associated with midlife women and with self-directed professionals in midcareer
transition who are proactive by definition (Hall, et al., 2002; Ibarra, 2003; Josselson,
2002). Participants anticipated these interactions as a means to move ahead or enhance
graduate study and future career goals. This communication was growth/success oriented
and characterized by freedom to choose, because the participant instrumentally selected
her message channel, timing, content and target(s). It was focused on making the most of
the present and initiating opportunities for the future.
Eight respondents (40% of the data set) reported instances of positive proactive
communication, typically described in favorable terms (e.g., as pleasant, energizing,
worth the time and effort or fun). In addition to asking lots of questions of selected
sources to reduce uncertainty, participants targeted communication to help them meet
goals through impression management, relationship building and related strategies.
Impression management included introductory interactions (early in department
tenure) with faculty, peers and other key people with the intent to be included, liked,
taken seriously as a student, respected or otherwise seen in a favorable light.
Relationship-building communication was initiated to achieve one’s own instrumental
78
goals and/or in response to others’ goals. This included proposing collaboration, learning
and development strategies (seeking advice, finding an advisor or mentor), information
sharing, coaching and offering to assist other department members. It is important to note
that in most cases, positive proactive communication was described as having multiple
purposes.
Elizabeth engaged in proactive relationship building and information seeking,
approaching faculty or peers regularly to get what she needed, ranging from departmental
facts to new social connections. She wanted to make a good impression with faculty and
she wanted to make connections since she had moved to another state for graduate
school. After a successful career as a business owner, Elizabeth started graduate school
with a strategy to succeed in an unfamiliar environment. She was comfortable with
approaching anyone in her department to find out what she needed to know.
When I get started in something new, I typically want to get as much information (to be successful), as possible. Since I didn't know anyone… I wanted to make friends. … I asked my cohorts what they knew because some of them had done undergraduate work at ___ and others were from the area. I also was not shy about asking questions of my advisor (who was also the grad director) and other professors that I met. Helen characterized faculty in her department as closed off and “selfish.” Yet she
wished to develop a mutually beneficial relationship with a particular faculty member and
had a plan to engage him in a joint research project. Her proactive communication was a
success strategy motivated by wanting to succeed in her new academic career.
One faculty member is very prolific and productive, and I was hoping to find an opportunity to work on something with him. So I asked if he’d be willing to collaborate on this paper, and offered some suggestions about how to expand its thesis into some publishable work. He seemed very pleased, and I was happy to have a project with him. I’ve definitely been “strategic” about some of the connections I have tried to build.
79
Like Helen, other participants reported initiating conversations with professors to
meet various goals. Some respondents combined faculty relationship-building strategies
with proactive impression-management strategies, hoping to create rapport with
professors they admired. Mary Alice shared what motivated her to start a relationship
with professors she had observed and liked:
I approached two professors to ostensibly talk about classes for the following year, but my real motive was to try and get to know them — although I did want advice, what I really wanted was to form a connection. One of them has since become a fantastic mentor for me, and I’m so grateful.
Sophia not only initiated communication with professors; she was one of the most
proactive women in the sample. Throughout her account she used forceful language to
describe what motivated her to speak up. She wanted to improve things in her
department, not only for her own sake but also on behalf of other students. Sophia had
earned a master’s in education several years prior to entering her graduate program at
midlife and she had many years’ teaching experience, including at the college level. She
had several suggestions she did not hesitate to share especially since she believed it was
likely other mature students would enter her graduate program.
Coming from a background in education, with 20+ years of experience …I was a real critic of processes that seemed outdated. The school, moving at the pace of a dinosaur, was not making headway fast enough to incorporate the energy and experience of older, returning students. I vociferously challenged the system… … I hoped to improve things… to be a part of the conversation at least. I spoke up, as often as I felt necessary, because an issue was not resolved… I am tenacious and gave no respite until I at least had a listening ear. …I also made a ruckus when it seemed a "large" issue was at stake—one that affected many people, not just me.
80
By the end of her first semester, Sophia felt she had been heard, because her
department head had implemented some of the changes she had recommended and
thanked her for the input.
Two final examples of positive proactive communication are based on a universal
graduate student experience: selecting an advisor. Ann’s interview underscored her
careful observations of professors early in her departmental tenure and her subsequent
choice of the department chair as advisor. She described him as a “wise and intuitive
man” and emphasized his maturity in contrast to younger faculty members in her
department. Her department chair was older than her, near his retirement. She asked him
to be her advisor because she felt respected, understood and had a good rapport with him.
She also chose him in order to pursue the research that interested her most:
… my department head…was the only potential advisor … who would let me be me. The other professors… made it clear that their advisees should become clones... mimicking their research… The department chair was completely comfortable with helping guide me on whatever research path I chose ... Another respondent, A. Hawken, used a similar strategic approach to decide upon
an advisor, actively observing faculty in her department—all younger than her—and
weighing options to facilitate the outcome she desired. She had been assigned an
“inexperienced” temporary advisor 15 years her junior and had a hard time taking him
seriously, because he looked like her son. She described his behavior as “socially inept
and immature.” She believed he was repelling potential advisees because of his demeanor
and at first, she said, “he drove me crazy.” She wasn’t sure she could handle having him
as an advisor.
After assessing the situation based on what would serve her needs, she realized it
made sense to keep her youthful advisor. From her stance as an older woman she
81
recognized what her young, inexperienced advisor needed to learn and she also wished to
avoid unwanted advice that would interfere with her research plans.
I felt sorry for my advisor. I didn’t want to abandon him… A younger female professor hinted that she wanted to be my advisor, but I felt that she would give me too much advice… I was mostly just enjoying what I was doing. I didn’t want an advisor who would push me this way or that way. So I decided to stick with my young advisor because I knew he wouldn’t give me so much advice. I also felt that HE would learn a lot from me about being an advisor.
In contrast to newcomers like Sophia or Ann who initiated positive changes and/or
felt their objectives to move ahead were being met through positive proactive
communication, others felt disempowered and drained, as they were forced to engage in
negative sink or swim survival communication to stay afloat during their first semesters.
Sink or Swim Survival Communication
Half of the participants in this research had common, difficult experiences that
were coded as sink or swim survival communication. These interactions were universally
described as draining and “required” to resolve issues perceived as slowing down or
blocking their progress. A negative frame characterized sink or swim communication, as
participants felt they had little or no choice in terms of message content, channel, timing,
target and the need to be proactive. This proactive communication was — paradoxically
— reactive and unplanned, in contrast to strategic positive proactive communication.
One of the most significant findings in this study is that sink or swim survival
communication was reported only by participants who experienced bad department fit
(10 out of 12 or 83% of those who reported bad fit also emphasized sink or swim survival
communication).
Sink or swim communication was described as demanding a great deal of time,
effort and patience. A cost, perceived punishment, or negative outcome was associated
82
with these interactions. When a respondent perceived a lack of departmental support and
no help was available she concluded that she had to figure things out on her own. It was
necessary to go on numerous information-seeking missions to resolve her concerns.
Grant and Ashford (2008) argue that proactive behavior is increased by ambiguity,
including uncertainty about roles, procedures and expectations (see also Weick, 1995).
Sink or swim communicators experienced ambiguity and felt required to socialize
themselves because they received little or no direction from their departments. In some
cases, they received information, but it contradicted what they had been told earlier and
they struggled to resolve these contradictions.
For example Karin received official information from her department, but she
thought her orientation was incomplete, unclear and not helpful. Furthermore, what she
was told at one point directly contradicted what she had been told earlier. She had
sacrificed much to be in graduate school and her plans were not working out as expected.
She felt resentment that things were not more organized after several unsuccessful
attempts to go through “official channels” for information she needed. I noticed that three
times in her interview text Karin referred to the “dead” of graduate studies. I asked her
about it. She responded that she meant the dean of graduate studies, and that he was so
unapproachable, no wonder she had written about him as “dead.” She summed up her
first semester this way:
This made me angry … I needed clear answers and I wasn’t getting them…. After all these failed attempts to get answers, I stopped communicating. There was nothing else I could do… I just sucked it up … Unfortunately in the end, I really felt like I'd made a bad choice … It was upsetting… I had come to this school based on “false advertising.” I’ve concluded I just don’t fit the mold here.
83
Karin’s failed attempts at proactively resolving her issues led to further stress and
she gave up, falling back on passive/reactive responses. She mentioned that in the end she
was disengaged from her department and very eager to get her program over with as
quickly as possible. She emphasized that she would not recommend her prestigious
graduate program to anyone else.
Rainey’s experience was also characterized by a series of unpleasant, draining
interactions. By semester’s end, she summed up her relationship to her department as the
“lowest life form in the department” and with one particular department staff member as
“gum underneath his shoe.” She shared how she came to these conclusions after multiple
sink or swim encounters with people she would have preferred to avoid because they
treated her so poorly. She recalled spending a lot of her time during the first semester
going on information-seeking missions and she described key insiders as being “passive,”
“unhelpful,” or unwilling to do their jobs. This anecdote about her first teaching assistant
paycheck is representative of how little help she received in her department.
One of the first questions I had to ask involved … a paycheck … I asked …if my paperwork had been submitted. He…. responded "I don't know"… so I had to inquire how I could find out. He again responded… "I don't know, maybe ask ______" …. When I asked her, I got a grimace like I was bothering her… her response was that the paperwork had been sent to the dean… but she didn't know… I then went to someone else who didn’t know… Much of my first semester was like that…
Rainey noted that the negative tone of forced interactions with faculty and staff
she perceived as rude, unprofessional, and unpleasant ultimately dampened her
enthusiasm for graduate school and impacted her performance.
These interactions left me feeling like I wasn't important as a person or a contributor to the department; like I was even less of a peon than a low-level clerk in some office somewhere. It also affected my schoolwork. By the end of the semester, I had lost interest and enthusiasm in my classes… and couldn't wait for
84
the semester to get over. It even affected my desire to return the following semester.
Like Rainey, R. Hat reported several instances of information seeking in an
academic department populated with unhelpful people at every turn. She noted trying to
track down the department head, several faculty and others who seemed “disorganized”
or uninformed. Finally, she found out the official person she needed to approach about an
important issue related to her timeline for completing her doctorate, but dreaded having
to interact with this individual again:
The graduate coordinator person responsible for course selection was just horrid… her attitude exuded superiority and power abuse. She treated me as though I didn’t matter as an individual. She was inflexible and didn’t want to hear about the fact that taking additional courses I didn’t need would literally cost me a semester. She was of little assistance other than spitting back the rules, in the rigid way that she understood them. She just wasn’t a nice or helpful person.
In sum, participants noted how their efforts to find information or resolve
problems through sink or swim survival communication were demoralizing or a “waste of
time.” Those who felt forced to engage in this communication had negative impressions
of their departments and felt these interactions added to their stress.
Summary of Findings
This chapter described the unique and most significant socialization
communication processes reported by twenty midcareer transition women during their
first semester adjustment to graduate study. Participants interpreted organizational
socialization messages (research question one) based on good or bad department fit and
identity loss issues that differentiated them from more traditional graduate students. They
responded to messages (research question two) through interactive stress reactions
including venting with people outside the department when they did not connect with
85
others within the department. They also engaged in internal success strategies that helped
them to experience their new identity as a graduate student in positive terms and take
control in difficult circumstances. Finally, they engaged in proactive communication
(research question three) including positive proactive communication calculated as an
interactive success strategy and negative, reactive sink or swim survival communication
reflective of not fitting in their departments.
Findings suggested several patterns of influence that may have important
implications for graduate student socialization practices, especially for academic
departments interested in attracting and retaining midcareer transition women students.
The connections between the themes will be explored further in the final chapter, along
with theoretical and practical implications of findings.
86
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This research was designed to answer calls in the literature to more fully
understand interactive organizational socialization processes from newcomers’
perspectives in localized contexts that do not fit traditional assumptions or models (Allen,
1996; Ashforth et al., 2007; Bullis & Stout, 2000; Jablin, 2001; Louis, 1980). More
specifically, it responded to calls in higher education literature to learn more about
nontraditional older graduate students’ socialization into academic departments (Brus,
2006; Polson, 2003). As an applied, exploratory study, this thesis also aimed to identify
areas for further research and to inform practices in traditional academic departments
wishing to socialize midcareer transition women students.
In the previous chapter, the three research questions about socialization
experiences of midcareer transition women graduate students were answered separately
using six integrated themes. To review, participants’ interpretations of socialization
messages were influenced by perceived department fit and identity losses. Two common
responses to messages were interactive stress reactions and internal success strategies.
The two contrasting ways participants engaged in proactive communication were positive
proactive communication and sink or swim survival communication.
This study assumed that midcareer transition women entered graduate study with
more and different past experiences than their typical younger counterparts, i.e.,
traditional students aged 22-29 (Polson, 2006). They also experienced more lifestyle and
identity losses than their traditional aged peers. Thus, participants were framed as
87
atypical proactive newcomers and the adjustment was expected to be qualitatively
different from what traditional beginning graduate students might experience (Brus,
2006; Carney-Crompton & Tan, 2002). Findings showed that midcareer transition women
did have unique socialization adjustment experiences. This chapter discusses selected
results and significant patterns of influence revealed in the data.
Findings as described in the previous chapter illuminated the critical role of
departmental fit in helping or hindering the socialization adjustment process. Further,
results highlighted how the adjustment process for midcareer transition women graduate
students is more difficult due to identity loss issues related to giving up a professional
career identity for a new, lower status graduate student identity. Finally, one of the most
significant findings was the apparent connection between participants’ perceptions of bad
fit in their departments and negative, sink or swim survival communication. These
interrelated findings can be explored in terms of organizational socialization processes,
focusing specifically on socialization strategies or tactics used by organizations.
Implications For Organizational Socialization Processes
Findings suggested socialization experiences of midcareer transition women
graduate students were unique in three ways. First, the socialization tactics departments
used influenced participants’ interpretations of department fit. When departments as a
whole affirmed the identity of the newcomer and/or the newcomer felt supported by at
least one member of the faculty participants seemed to perceive good fit. The
socialization tactic that best supports identity affirmation is that of investiture.
Conversely, when departments did not recognize newcomer identity and there was not
support from at least one faculty insider the newcomer perceived bad fit. The majority or
88
60% of thesis participants perceived bad fit. The socialization tactic associated with bad
fit and most disaffirming of identity is that of divestiture. Both of these tactics and their
explanatory power in this study will be discussed further in this chapter. Second, identity
losses related to midcareer transition women giving up previous careers before entering
graduate school strongly impacted the socialization process. Finally, the third most
significant finding related to socialization during adjustment was the nature of proactive
communication experiences participants had which seemed driven by whether they
perceived good fit or bad fit. Women who perceived bad department fit were the only
participants who engaged in draining and negatively framed proactive communication
identified as “sink or swim survival” communication.
These findings have both theoretical and practical implications for organizational
socialization. We begin with the theoretical implications related to socialization tactics,
contrasting the experiences of participants who perceived good fit with those who
perceived bad fit.
Department Fit and Socialization Tactics
As Cable and Parsons (2001) state, the ways organizations manage or fail to
manage newcomers’ encounters with other organizational members influence
newcomers’ subjective perceptions of how they fit. Organizations manage these
encounters through intentional or unintentional socialization messages or socialization
tactics (Jablin, 2001; Jones, 1986). As addressed in the literature review, socialization
tactics include formal and informal strategies used to orient all newcomers to their role in
the organization. Two contrasting tactics particularly relevant to this study were those of
investiture and divestiture (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
89
Investiture involves the confirmation of the individual newcomer’s previous
role/identity. Conversely, divestiture tactics involve not recognizing the newcomer’s
previous identity in order to create a collective identity for newcomers. The military uses
divestiture tactics in the hopes of creating soldiers. “Soldier” becomes a primary
identifier rather than the job. For example, the Army has lawyers, doctors and
accountants but soldier is the most salient identity. Similarly, graduate school
socialization is a complex process of taking on a new identity as “graduate student” or
aspiring professional academic. The assumption is that beginning graduate students are
inexperienced neophytes who must mature, develop under the direction of more
experienced mentors, and learn how to be professional through following the lead of
older faculty role models (Austin, 2002). The challenging process of fitting into the new
academic department is facilitated through the cohort or support from graduate student
peers (Weidman et al., 2001).
Findings of this thesis indicate this model doesn’t work for mature, experienced
midcareer transition women, who don’t fit with their cohort and who are around the same
age and life stage as faculty. In fact, this research indicates that connecting with faculty is
very important for midcareer transition women graduate students, as the adjustment
process and perception of good fit are enhanced through faculty investiture tactics.
Good Fit, Investiture and Faculty Support
For the eight participants in this thesis who experienced good department fit, it
seemed to be driven especially by investiture socialization tactics practiced by faculty
members. Investiture includes respecting, recognizing and affirming the individuality,
value, past experiences and potential contributions of the newcomer (Jones, 1986).
90
The data suggested that good fit with at least one faculty member who provided reliable
support and encouragement to the midcareer transition student facilitated her feelings of
department fit. Even if other aspects of departmental adjustment felt awkward or were
perceived negatively (such as feeling out of place among other graduate students or being
bored with coursework), the interest and attention of a single faculty member made a
positive difference. For example, some participants emphasized how a department head
or faculty advisor recognized her unique needs or made it clear she was seen as an adult
peer rather than as just another graduate student. One of the most significant findings
overall is that participants who perceived good fit reported no negative (sink or swim
survival) communication, which contrasts them sharply with women who experienced
bad fit. This will be discussed further later in the chapter.
Good department fit through positive connections with faculty is not meant to
suggest the adjustment period was easy. Participants who experienced good fit were still
strongly impacted by identity loss issues that caused considerable angst, such as loss of
professional status, financial independence, or self worth. In this respect, they were
similar to participants who experienced bad department fit. The impact of identity losses
for most participants in this thesis is briefly summarized in the next section.
Identity Losses and Pre-entry Divestiture
The majority of participants (16 of 20) experienced what I label a “pre-entry
divestiture” factor that seemed to influence socialization experiences in ways that have
not been addressed in previous research. Regardless of socialization tactics departments
used and resulting perceptions of department fit, participants emphasized that the
adjustment to graduate school was hindered or made significantly more difficult because
91
of lifestyle and identity losses they had voluntarily assumed just before starting graduate
school. For example, they missed the professional perks and higher status identity
associated with being a business owner or with holding a management position. They
bemoaned having to rely excessively on husbands or partners when they were
accustomed to contributing more time or resources in their households.
This pre-entry divestiture was foremost in participants’ minds throughout their
adjustment to academic departments. For 80% of participants, the awareness of what they
had given up to be in graduate school was described repeatedly and forcefully as an extra
layer of complexity through which they navigated their adaptation to graduate study. For
new graduate students dealing with significant losses related to pre-entry divestiture,
additional divestiture or bad fit within their academic departments was especially difficult
and disappointing.
Participants who perceived bad department fit had an experience and pattern of
responses that contrasted in significant ways with the eight women who perceived good
department fit. For one half of participants in this study the adjustment to graduate school
included an unwelcome, unplanned form of communication framed as sink or swim
survival communication. This negative factor and its connection to bad fit and
departmental divestiture socialization tactics are explained in the next section.
Bad Fit, Divestiture and Sink or Swim Proactivity
Perception of poor fit, described as a lack of orientation, direction and support
from academic departments seemed connected with a sink-or-swim survival self-
socialization process reported as draining. These “required” proactive encounters were
associated with negative impressions of departments in which participants felt
92
disrespected, devalued, uninformed or ignored. The ways they were treated by
department insiders suggested divestiture rather than investiture; i.e., from the
newcomers’ perspectives their identities and previous experiences were not recognized or
affirmed by the department (Jones, 1986). Participants experiencing poor fit also
described some apparently disjunctive socialization tactics that were non-existent (i.e., no
orientation whatsoever), unhelpful, confusing or contradictory.
Ten out of twelve (83%) participants who experienced poor fit emphasized they
spent a lot of time and effort engaging in unwelcome sink-or-swim communication to
stay afloat in programs where they had no guidance. Some of these sink-or-swim
survivalists also reported internal success strategies explicitly designed to help them cope
with poor department fit (in contrast to internal success strategies reported by “good fit”
participants which were more often motivated by wanting to improve learning or
performance in departments where they already felt respected and valued).
As described earlier, poor fit was also interpreted through the lens of challenging
identity loss issues. The most dissatisfied respondents seemed to be those who perceived
they sacrificed a lot to enter graduate school only to be divested further of previous
identities in their academic departments. Thus this study suggests they experienced a
“double divestiture” during their adjustment to graduate study.
In sum, findings suggested that academic departments helped or hindered the
adjustment process for new midcareer transition women graduate students through
socialization tactics that either supported individual identity (investiture) or disaffirmed
individual identity (divestiture). Based on the results of this thesis, for midcareer
transition women graduate students it appears important to their satisfaction and
93
perception of a successful adjustment that the academic department use investiture
socialization strategies to facilitate fit. Practical implications of these findings are
explored next.
Implications for Practice in Traditional Graduate Departments
Numerous reports about graduate education emphasize a growing crisis:
increasing numbers of graduate students do not complete their programs, resulting in
wasted dollars, time and resources (Lovitts & Nelson, 2000). Higher education research
has linked these graduate student attrition issues to a number of factors including
inadequate socialization (Austin, 2002; Golde, 2005; Weidman et al., 2001). Presently it
is common knowledge that institutions are pressed to further reduce expenses and
maximize resources due to budget cuts related to a significant global recession.
Meanwhile a reduction in the population of typical graduate students indicates more
atypical newcomers, i.e., nontraditional graduate students, may be needed to fill graduate
programs. As the demographic profile of students changes institutions will need to be
more concerned with recruitment and retention of older students. The average age of
graduate students is increasing and greater numbers of nontraditional students are
entering graduate study (Brus, 2006; Gardner, 2010; Polson, 2003). This thesis provides
insights about how socialization should be adapted for midcareer transition women.
Implications for Department-wide Socialization Practices
Research on graduate student socialization practices emphasizes insider peer
support from fellow graduate students as easing the socialization process (Brus, 2006;
Myers, 1998). The most cited graduate student socialization models take for granted that
socialization occurs with and through the peer group and characterize this support as
94
“critical” to a successful transition into graduate school (e.g. Weidman et al. 2001).
However, this model proved to be ineffective with participants in this study. Significant
demographic and background differences impeded bonding with other graduate students
and socialization most often did not occur through social support from the cohort. Rather,
faculty and administrators played a more instrumental role in establishing the good fit
that facilitates retention. Participants who felt they were socialized effectively in their
departments were recognized and treated by faculty and administrators as experienced
professionals.
Some of the most positive socialization experiences in the present study seemed
related to a departmental-wide focus on welcoming, orienting and providing consistent
relational support to newcomers. Department chairs and other insiders (i.e., graduate
coordinators and faculty) were described as setting an example and modeling
expectations for all department members to follow, including being attentive to or
anticipating the needs and questions of midcareer transition women graduate students
(and of all graduate students in their departments). Socialization responsibilities were
managed collectively, with every employee of the department prepared, willing and
available to help new graduate students.
Findings of this study suggest that the importance of the academic department
respecting the individual identity, background and experienced adulthood of the
midcareer transition woman student is especially salient for women who voluntarily take
on significant losses immediately prior to entering graduate school, divesting themselves
of previous professional identities, status, homes, relationships, financial independence
and more. The “pre-entry divestiture” identified in this thesis affirms findings in the
95
limited earlier research on midcareer transition women graduate students who reported
extreme stress and identity crises related to giving up careers they had held prior to
graduate school (e.g., Sanders & Nassar, 1993).
The majority of participants in this research were constantly aware of midcareer
transition-related identity losses while adjusting to new academic environments. When
faced with additional losses (e.g., the perception of being treated like a child, having
one’s background ignored or being challenged instead of being helped by people in the
department) the process was more difficult. These participants felt forced to engage in
sink or swim survival communication to make progress in departments where they felt
they did not fit.
Implications for Graduate Faculty
Findings have implications for graduate faculty members because for some
participants the actions of just one person helped her feel like she found good fit in the
department. Participants’ accounts suggested that a sensitive faculty member can make a
significant positive difference regardless of how effective or ineffective department-wide
socialization practices may be. Those who reported good fit were able to connect with at
least one faculty member who recognized and affirmed her as an experienced
professional or peer (i.e., communicated in ways suggesting investiture).
One participant noted “my advisor respected my adulthood” and others
highlighted how department chairs intervened to ease various challenges or make the
student feel more comfortable. For example, a graduate director arranged for a welcome
dinner after a student moved with her husband to attend graduate school out-of-state, and
a department chair moved a midcareer student out of a crowded graduate student office
96
she “hated” because it was filled with 22-year olds with whom she had nothing in
common.
In contrast, participants who reported bad department fit emphasized that faculty
may be have been well-intentioned but seemed uninformed, “clueless,” disengaged, and
insensitive to the age, life/professional experiences and different needs of midcareer
transition women students. When it was difficult to connect with other graduate students
and equally challenging to find peers among faculty, participants had negative
perceptions of their departments. These findings suggest that departments might offer
faculty development programming emphasizing a culture of inclusion that does not treat
graduate students with a “one size fits all” approach.
Limitations and Future Research
This applied study explored the experiences of a small, purposive sample
adjusting to a unique organizational context. The findings are most informative to
academic departments wishing to recruit, socialize and retain midcareer transition women
graduate students. Findings should be applied to socialization experiences in other
contexts with caution; i.e., they are not transferrable to other types of newcomers or other
types of organizations.
Due to the sampling strategy used more than half of participants were pursuing
advanced degrees in communication studies or related disciplines (e.g. journalism and
mass communication). These participants may be more aware of socialization messages
because they are predisposed to consider perspectives related to their area of study.
Although there appeared to be no significant differences in data collected from
97
participants representing the various academic disciplines, caution should be used in
applying results.
A primary goal of exploratory research is to identify areas for further study. This
thesis explored a narrow time period of organizational adjustment (the first semester or
six months of graduate study). While findings may have implications for organizational
socialization theorizing about this stage, they also suggest that we need to learn more
about the role of anticipatory socialization as an earlier stage in the socialization process
in terms of expectation-setting for newcomers (Jablin, 2001; Louis, 1980). Further testing
is needed of findings connected to outcome variables such as satisfaction and retention,
especially as low graduate student satisfaction and related high attrition rates are framed
as a growing crisis in higher education (Gardner, 2010; Polson, 2003). It would also be
helpful to compare traditional graduate departments that appear to use “best practices” in
socializing midcareer transition women students with those that don’t by examining their
socialization tactics.
Thesis participants were in the midst of broader life and career stages that have
received a lot of research attention. Findings revealed important and under-studied factors
that have implications beyond organizational socialization theory; they may build upon
our knowledge of midcareer women in transition. For instance, we need to understand
more about how and why women make significant career shifts at midlife and how this
impacts identity. Ibarra (2003) called for research to shed light on the organizational
socialization experiences of people in midcareer transition, specifically.
Many respondents credited husbands or partners for being critical sources of
support, and others commented they might have left graduate school if not for the steady
98
encouragement or tangible help provided by close friends or family. Data suggested that
the transition was more difficult for those who made the most significant lifestyle
changes (e.g., moving across country, selling homes, losing financial independence,
leaving loved ones and familiar communities behind).
When the decision to enter an organization represents significant losses or
sacrifices, the stakes are high. The usual shock, disappointment, and surprise associated
with entering unfamiliar environments may be intensified (Louis, 1980). Thus, we need
to learn more about what this study identified as “pre-entry divestiture,” or the losses that
precede organizational entry and adjustment. Finally, in addition to “pre-entry
divestiture” identity losses, the least satisfied respondents experienced what appeared to
be a “double divestiture” when they perceived poor department fit and no affirmation of
their identities. This concept deserves further exploration.
Conclusions
In sum, this thesis answered a call in the literature to study a new research context
in depth by exploring the experiences of midcareer transition women graduate students
entering traditional academic departments where they did not fit the norm. Findings add
to our knowledge through affirming the connection between investiture socialization
tactics and perception of good fit (Cable & Parsons, 2001). Results also suggest that for
midcareer transition women graduate students a lack of faculty support and academic
department divestiture tactics, in particular, lead to a perception of poor organizational fit
and subsequent sink or swim proactive communication. This finding underscores the link
between ambiguity and proactivity proposed by Grant & Ashford (2008). This thesis also
identified a significant “pre-entry divestiture” factor, i.e., identity losses, that impacted
99
newcomer adjustment in negative ways, even when the organization used socialization
tactics resulting in the perception of good fit.
In terms of practical implications, this thesis found that for midcareer transition
women graduate students who did not fit with their cohort, building relationships with
faculty members was an important substitute or means of investiture through providing
insider support. Those participants who lacked both peer (fellow graduate students)
support and faculty support experienced the most negative and difficult socialization
processes. This finding informs the limited higher education research stating that
graduate student socialization processes need to be improved and different for older
nontraditional students (e.g., Brus, 2006; Polson, 2003). It also directly challenges
established models for graduate student socialization that emphasize the central role of
peer climate and regular interaction among graduate students to facilitate socialization
and provide support (e.g., Weidman et al., 2001).
Van Manen (2002) wrote that perhaps the best place to begin phenomenological
research exploring common human experiences (such as socialization into a new
organization) is in the context of one’s own experience. This study originated in my
experiences as a midcareer transition woman who started full-time graduate study at age
45. I wanted to understand more about my own socialization process through exploring
the experiences of demographically similar students entering similar contexts. I felt
compelled to find out whether other women experienced my conflicting feelings about
where they fit as new graduate students after giving up established professional identities.
Each of the twenty midcareer transition women interviewed for this thesis had unique life
circumstances during graduate school adjustment and their first semester experiences
100
were not all the same. They had enrolled in different programs, had varied living
arrangements, distinct personalities and a wide range of work/life backgrounds.
Nevertheless, this thesis found there were significant similarities in the experiences of
these 20 individuals during the first semester of graduate school.
As I reflect on the process, I am grateful to the women I interviewed and I am
inspired by their stories. Three and a half years have passed since I interviewed them.
I’ve learned that some have embarked on highly successful new careers in academia and I
was pleased to encounter a recently published peer-reviewed publication by one of my
research participants. For me, completing this thesis was a highly personal and
introspective endeavor. I hope my attempt to share participants’ personal perspectives of
starting graduate school in midcareer transition has been fair to them and informative to
the reader.
101
APPENDIX A
Interview Schedule
Please provide the following introductory and background information:
1. Name (a pseudonym of your choice).
2. List all degrees previously earned (before entering your midcareer transition).
Include your major or concentration.
3. Provide title and brief description of last fulltime position held before entering
your midcareer transition.
4. Number of years you worked, fulltime, before entering midcareer transition.
5. What is your new (most recent, or current) career choice?
6. What is your most recent, or current, graduate degree program and concentration.
7. Your age when you started fulltime graduate school, in your most recent (or
current) program.
8. a) Please describe how your graduate school expenses (tuition, fees, books) were
funded in your first full semester (approximately six months).
b) Please describe how your living expenses were funded at this time.
9. Please describe your living circumstances when you started fulltime graduate
school as a midcareer transition student (e.g., living alone, living with husband
and two children, single parent, living with partner, spouse, roommate, etc.).
10. Please tell me a bit about what’s going on in your life right now.
The following information was provided to orient participants to the study context (i.e.,
the first semester or first six months of graduate study):
102
The context (time and place) for this study is the first six months you attended
graduate school as a fulltime, midcareer transition student. Please think back to the
period when you entered graduate school, and how you perceived your situation then.
Specifically, I will ask you to focus on interactions or messages related to your role
as a graduate student during the time you were a “newcomer” in graduate school.
Questions:
1. What happened in your life that led to you becoming a midcareer, fulltime
graduate student?
2. When you first started graduate school, what expectations did you have about
graduate school?
3. What graduate student orientation-related information do you remember receiving
when you started? (e.g., formal training/orientation materials, informal messages
or stories you were told about how to navigate graduate school, what you needed
to know about your department, expectations about your role, etc.)
4. What—or who—were the most accurate sources of information?
5. Overall, what was your first semester of fulltime graduate school like for you?
Describe how you felt at the time.
6. Tell me about messages or interactions that stood out for you during this
adjustment period.
7. What were the key sources of information for you?
8. Who were the significant people (and their roles) who influenced you at this time?
9. How did you respond to the messages you received (and/or interactions you
experienced) at this time?
103
10. With whom did you choose to communicate regarding your role as a graduate
student?
11. What did you hope to accomplish?
12. After your first full semester, or your first six months of fulltime graduate school,
how would you describe yourself in relation to your graduate department?
13. Can you think of other factors that influenced your feelings about your role in
your graduate department during this adjustment period?
14. What advice would you offer to other midcareer-transition women entering
fulltime graduate school?
Thank you for participating in this study.
104
APPENDIX B
Definitions and Parameters For Data Reduction and Analysis
This appendix explains a priori definitions and parameters used for data reduction
based on the three guiding research questions and theoretical sensitivity. It includes
exemplars to illustrate the process used during early stages of data analysis. Jablin (2001)
and other scholars have emphasized there are no consistent conceptual or operational
definitions for socialization-communication processes. As explained in the literature
review, definitions for this study were determined based on sources that have been widely
cited, and/or that had purposes or perspectives most similar to this thesis.
Organizational Socialization Messages
Socialization messages were defined broadly as all types of communicative events
or organizational socialization messages relevant to the research context and purpose,
based on Jablin (2001). I identified organizational socialization messages in raw data as
any message, piece of information, event, interaction, observation, incident, or “clue”
from organizational sources or within the organization that made an impression on the
newcomer because she perceived it as relevant to her new organizational role(s) and/or
her learning about the new culture.
Socialization message parameters included:
• Formal, planned, official and explicit information as well as informal,
unplanned, unofficial or implicit information.
• Institutionalized (or collective) socialization tactics as well as
individualized socialization tactics (Jones, 1986)
105
• Messages received from the first day of the newcomer’s first semester in
her graduate department, through the end of her first semester, or after
approximately six months (limited to the organizational adjustment stage,
as defined by Jablin, 1987; 2001).
• Messages originating from organizational sources, i.e., others who were
representatives or had roles in the graduate department.
• Observations or clues the newcomer perceived in the new organizational
context, i.e., what she noticed about the culture or what made an
impression on her while she was physically present in the graduate
department.
Exemplars of organizational socialization messages:
All new graduate students received a packet of official orientation materials on our first day, including departmental policies and a graduate handbook. We got this information from the department secretary.
I discovered professors’ offices were on a separate floor, as far from the graduate student office as possible. Professors’ office doors were always closed, although I knew at least some of them were in their offices.
Parameters excluded:
• Messages, observations or opinions originating from outsiders about the
department, graduate schools, or academia.
• Observations the newcomer made about areas of the university outside her
graduate department.
• Messages received in the academic department prior to or after the organizational
adjustment stage of socialization.
106
Exemplars of data excluded from further analysis:
My sister works at another university and before I started graduate school she… warned me it was not going to be like the “real world.”
Near the end of my first year, my advisor gave me positive feedback on my research ideas and suggested we work on a summer project together.
Identifying Socialization Message Interpretations and Responses
The first two research questions in this thesis are based on Jablin (1982; 1987;
2001) and they are linked. The first question asked how participants interpreted
socialization messages and the second question asked how they responded to these
messages. The socialization messages (defined above) were identified first and then the
data was analyzed for related interpretations and responses.
This research did not use pre-determined definitions for socialization message
interpretations and responses, as the purposes were to discover what the data revealed.
However, the following parameters were used to reduce data prior to coding.
Interpretations and responses included thoughts, feelings, behaviors, emotions, and
reactions linked to one or more departmental socialization message. They included
respondents’ initial thoughts and feelings or sensemaking about their departments’
socialization messages, and how they reacted or responded to messages (with the
exception of proactive communication responses, defined separately).
Exemplars of socialization message interpretation and response:
I noticed the other graduate students were half my age. I was old enough to be their mother, and I was older than some faculty. I felt old and unsure of where I fit in. My temporary advisor was wonderful; she made an effort to support me in any way she could, starting with good advice about how to get started on my research early.
107
Interpretations and responses excluded thoughts or feelings about organizational
socialization messages received from institutional (university) sources outside the
newcomer’s academic department.
Exemplar of data excluded for further analysis:
On my first day, I was walking around … the main library… someone welcomed me and asked if I was interested in a tour or had questions. I was excited to be on campus and impressed with this offer of help.
Combining Data into Cohesive Thought Units
Following is a more detailed exemplar of how data was combined into a thought
unit for further analysis and coding. This illustrates how I identified and gathered the
linking threads of data from the original socialization message to the interpretation and
the response.
I got the message that required coursework was going to be “by the book” and little discussion was going to happen in class because professors were into lecturing (socialization message). I felt frustrated and bored in these traditional lecture classes. I wanted to discuss and apply the material because for me that’s an enjoyable and rich aspect of learning (message interpretation; i.e., feeling/thought about the socialization message). So after complaining numerous times to my husband about this—bless his heart—I finally decided I had to suck it up and resign myself to boring lectures. I was also looking forward to my electives the next semester and hoping they would be better (responses to the socialization message).
Guiding Definition For Proactive Communication
The third research question in this thesis asked how participants engaged in
proactive communication during graduate school adjustment. Proactive communication
was defined broadly as: communication initiated by the newcomer during adjustment and
targeted to organizational sources to achieve the newcomer’s immediate goals during
graduate study and/or her related future career goals. This was informed by the work of
108
Myers and McPhee (2006), who defined proactivity as “the initiative to work to obtain
desired goals” (p. 446).
There are various conceptualizations or categories of proactive behavior in the
literature with no one definitive list. For this study, Miller and Jablin (1991) and Ashford
and Black (1996) were consulted. Also, Jablin’s (2001) list of newcomer proactive
communication behaviors was used as a guideline to identify instances of proactive
communication. These behaviors include but are not limited to: information seeking,
feedback seeking, information giving (also encompassing impression management),
relationship development, and role negotiation.
Exemplars of proactive communication:
I initiated contact with professors I admired most and who were influential in the department. It was important to me that they see me as a serious, good graduate student. I needed to get information, so I latched onto the graduate student association president, and asked him lots of questions.
109
APPENDIX C
Codebook Defining Final Themes
Interpretation Themes
Department fit
The definition of department fit was informed by multidisciplinary literature (e.g.,
Austin, 2002; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Jablin, 2001; Smircich & Calas, 1987).
Department fit issues encompassed each participant’s interpretation of her difference or
similarity to others in the academic program in which she had enrolled. These differences
or similarities were clustered into three dimensions: culture fit, role fit, and relational
fit/insider support.
Detailed definition:
Expressions of suitability, appropriateness, comfort, and satisfaction with the organizational culture (pre-existing academic department norms), roles, and/or relationships and level of insider support, indicating finding one’s place, belonging to a peer group, and/or adapting to established practices and expectations.
Parameters:
Culture fit • How things are done, formal and informal rules • Personality of the department as a whole • The use of time or space • Status and hierarchy issues • Communication climate
Role fit
• As a new graduate student in the discipline or academic program • With knowledge or learning expectations and coursework requirements • As a class participant (in graduate course meetings) • Other or unofficially assigned roles as applicable,
e.g., teaching assistant, novice researcher, scholar or aspiring professional
110
Relational fit and insider support • A sense of belonging, similarity, or being a peer with groups in the
department as a whole (graduate student cohort or faculty) • Insider support - connecting with key department members who
recognized the newcomer’s needs and offered instrumental help • Affirmation of newcomer’s identity
Exemplars of department fit:
I felt thrilled to be in a classroom environment studying something interesting… really stretching my brain. I started to have some ideas about how the school was structured, and I was feeling at home with it.
I think I began to find “my people” which was a means of confirming this new identity I’d adopted as a graduate student. Finding common interests with the other cultural studies students and faculty was a way in which I settled into the department.
Lack of fit exemplars:
I hated some of the old methods of instruction… I needed a more diverse bulk of material and variety of interactive experiences (I was bored otherwise) and they were into rote memorization.
I felt old, and out of place vis a vis most classmates.
Identity losses
Identity losses comprised tangible and intangible losses participants attributed to
their midcareer transition and their choice to leave established jobs prior to enrolling in
fulltime graduate study.
Detailed definition and parameters:
Includes losses or divestiture of tangible things, e.g., income, benefits, financial independence, homes, time, other material goods, companionship, community relationships, professional perks; and/or intangible things, e.g., status, positive self image, confidence, professional identity, respect, authority, “adulthood,” voice, and freedom. Also includes loss of ability to handle household or other responsibilities on her own, requiring reliance on others.
111
Exemplars of identity losses:
I could no longer handle everything that was on my plate, even though I was always a “multi-tasker.” My husband didn’t seem to mind paying all the bills and helping out, but it really bothered me because I needed to see myself as an equal contributor around the house. Not a day went by during that first semester that I didn’t miss my salary and benefits. The financial losses I faced were probably the most difficult part of my adjustment.
Response Themes
Interactive stress reactions
Interactive stress reactions were non-instrumental “venting” episodes participants
engaged in with others described as a means of coping with intense emotions or the
anxiety related to adjusting to graduate school.
Detailed definition and parameters:
Passive or reactive (non-instrumental) interactive episodes or encounters that were attributed to the stress or overwhelming feelings related to graduate department adjustment. These interactions occurred with both internal (departmental) targets and external targets (e.g., family members and trusted friends). These encounters were unplanned. The intent was to relieve stress or to be heard and understood by others who cared (or with whom the participant could commiserate).
Exemplars of interactive stress reactions:
I really needed to blow off steam. I moaned and groaned a lot to my husband. It was a highly stressful time and I sometimes commiserated with my classmates, who were over 15 years younger, but a good source for feedback when I had that “overwhelmed” feeling.
Internal success strategies
Internal success strategies included instrumental decisions and actions motivated
by the desire to take charge of, improve, or advance one’s academic program, situation,
or future career path.
112
Detailed definition and parameters:
Includes non-interactive strategies and decisions such as re-positioning one’s self, re-framing a problem, working consciously to change an attitude, belief, or perspective to bolster confidence, or choosing a self-empowering approach to getting through difficulties. Includes working independently on self-directed learning strategies to improve academic performance or to address fear of failure. Also includes defining one’s own goals or measures of “success” for graduate study, and/or implementing a behavioral change to facilitate success.
Exemplars of internal success strategies:
I decided it was up to me to make this program work. I was not going to allow anyone’s behavior in the department to get to me! I made up my mind that I would change my attitude and do whatever it takes to not let myself down, and this strategy served me well.
I wanted to succeed so I studied constantly, stayed focused on my own goals and worked hard.
Proactive Communication Themes
Positive proactive communication
Positive proactive communication was intentional (strategic or planned) and
desired interaction with academic department members initiated to further one’s graduate
study or future career-related goals.
Detailed definition and parameters:
Includes positively framed and planned communication initiated by the newcomer and motivated by the desire to succeed or advance in various ways. Such communication included information seeking, impression management and instrumental relationship building. It was characterized by freedom to choose, because the subject instrumentally selected her message channel, timing, content, and target(s). Includes interactions described in favorable terms (e.g., as pleasant, energizing, worth the time and effort, or fun). Also includes communication resulting in a reward or positive outcome.
113
Exemplars of positive proactive communication:
I’m an extrovert so I worked on being a part of the department more by starting a conversation with a faculty member who seemed approachable. I invited her out to lunch. I needed to make some connections and this worked out well. I enjoyed getting to know her.
One faculty member is very prolific and productive, and I was hoping to find an opportunity to work on something with him. So I asked if he’d be willing to collaborate on this paper, and offered some suggestions about how to expand its thesis into some publishable work. He seemed very pleased, and I was happy to have a project with him. I’ve definitely been “strategic” about some of the connections I have tried to build.
Sink or swim survival proactive communication
Sink or swim survival proactive communication was negative, unwanted,
unplanned and framed as necessary or required to resolve issues during adjustment.
Detailed definition and parameters:
Interactions with department members, initiated by the newcomer, and reported as draining, forced, and required for self-orientation, or to resolve issues perceived as slowing down or blocking progress. Includes communication initiated to address immediate role requirements or needs, when the newcomer had little or no choice in terms of message content, channel, timing, or target. Includes interactions initiated by the newcomer and framed negatively as demanding time, effort, and patience, and/or resulting in perceived punishment (negative outcome).
Exemplars of sink or swim survival communication:
I was forced to track down the graduate coordinator or plan my week around people’s schedules, to see when someone that I needed might be available. I was wasting my time chasing down information, and I had way more questions than answers, but I needed to get answers, because I could end up taking the wrong courses or doing something else that would set me back. I was given no information or help whatsoever. So I had to ask lots of questions and deal with issues or problems as necessary. It was very difficult to approach people with my questions when they acted like they couldn’t be bothered and gave me the runaround.
114
REFERENCES
Allen, B. J. (1996). Feminist standpoint theory: A black woman’s (re)view of organizational socialization. Communication Studies, 47(4), 257-271.
Anderson, B. J., & Miezitis, S. (1999). Stress and life satisfaction in mature female
graduate students. Initiatives, 59(1), 33-43. Arthur, M. B. (2008). Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary
inquiry. Human Relations, 61(2), 163-186. Ashford, S., & Black, J.S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of
desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199-214. Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M., & Harrison, S.H. (2007). Socialization in organizational
contexts. In G.P. Hodgkinson & J.K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 22 (pp. 1-70). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and
observer reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 249-270.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94-122.
Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thompson Learning. Ballard, D. I., & Gossett, L. M. (2007). Alternative times: Temporal perceptions,
processes, and practices defining the nonstandard work relationship. Communication Yearbook, 31, 274-320.
Barge, J. K., & Schlueter, D. W. (2004). Memorable messages and newcomer
socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 68(3), 233-256. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and
code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brim, O. (1966). Socialization through the life cycle. In O. G. Brim & S. G. Wheeler
(Eds.), Socialization after childhood (pp. 3-49). New York: Wiley. Brown, M. H. (1985). That reminds me of a story: Speech action in organizational
socialization. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 27-42.
115
Brus, C. P. (2006). Seeking balance in graduate school: A realistic expectation or a dangerous dilemma? New Directions in Student Services, 115, 31-45.
Bullis, C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling, constraining, and
shifting perspectives. Communication Monographs, 60,10-17. Bullis, C. (1999). Mad or bad: A response to Kramer and Miller. Communication
Monographs, 66, 368-373. Bullis, C., & Bach, B. (1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of change in
organizational identification. Western Journal of Communication, 53, 273-293. Bullis, C., & Stout, K. R. (2000). Organizational socialization: A feminist standpoint
approach. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational & managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 47-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Goldzwig, S. R. (1991). Linear and nonlinear career models:
Metaphors, paradigms, and ideologies. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 466-505.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Turner, L. H. (2003). Emotion work revealed by job loss discourse:
Backgrounding-foregrounding of feelings, construction of normalcy, and (re)instituting of traditional masculinities. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31(1), 27-57.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit.
Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1-23. Canary, H. E., & Canary, D. J. (2007). Making sense of one’s career: An analysis and
typology of supervisor career stories. Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 225-246. Carney-Crompton, S., & Tan, J. (2002). Support systems, psychological functioning and
academic performance of nontraditional female students. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(2), 140-154.
Chapman, C. (2008). Retention begins before day one: Orientation and socialization in
libraries. New Library World, 110(3/4), 122-135. Clair, R. P. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, “a real job”: Implications
for organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249-267. Clair, R. P. (1999). A review of Kramer and Miller’s manuscript. Communication
Monographs, 66, 374-381.
116
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vianen, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in person-organization fit: The impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 52-78.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2004). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Policy, numbers,
leadership, and next steps. Washington, DC: Author. Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Dallimore, E. J. (2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered
socialization of new university faculty. Women’s Studies in Communication, 26(2), 214-265.
Dallimore, E. J., & Mickel, A. E. (2006). Quality of life: Obstacles, advice, and employer
assistance. Human Relations, 59, 61-103. Donohue, W. A., & Druckman, D. (2009). Message framing surrounding the Oslo
Accords. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(1), 119-145. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge. Falcione, R. L, & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G. M.
Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 151-170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive
newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(4), 473-502.
Forward, G. (1999). Encountering the nonprofit organization: Clergy uncertainty and
information-seeking during organizational entry. Journal of Communication Research, 22, 190-213.
Gardner, S. K. (2010). Contrasting the socialization experiences of doctoral students in
high- and low-completing departments: A qualitative analysis of disciplinary contexts at one institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 61-81.
Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. (2000). The mud, the blood, and the beer guys:
Organizational osmosis in blue-collar work groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 68-88.
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of department and discipline in doctoral student attrition:
Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76, (669-700).
117
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Griffin, A., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer and organizational
socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 453-474.
Gundry, L.K., & Rousseau, D.M. (1994). Critical incidents in communicating culture to
newcomers: The meaning is the message. Human Relations, 47, 1063-1088. Hall, D. T. (1986). Breaking career routines: Midcareer choices and identity
development. In D. T. Hall & Associates (Eds.), Career development in organizations (pp. 120-159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, D. T., Zhu, G., & Yan, A. (2002). Career creativity as protean identity
transformation. In M. A. Peiperl, M. B. Arthur, & N. Anand (Eds.), Career creativity: Explorations in the remaking of work (pp. 159-179). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hart, Z. P., & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational
socialization: A research note. Human Communication Research, 31(2), 295-109. Hess, J. A. (1993). Assimilating newcomers into an organization: A cultural perspective.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 189-210. Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations: Information-seeking during
organizational entry. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(1), 9-26. Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. New York: Free Press. Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your
career. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Jablin, F. M. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. In M. E.
Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255-286). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M.
Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 732- 810). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
118
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendships and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279. Josselson, R. (2002). Revisions: Processes of development in midlife women. In J.
Demick & C. Andretti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 431-452). New York: Plenum Press.
Keyton, J. (2006). Communication research: asking questions, finding answers. (2nd ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill. Keyton, J., Bisel, R. S. & Ozley, R. (2009). Recasting the link between applied and
theory research: Using applied findings to advance communication theory development. Communication Theory, 19, 146-160.
Kim, T., Cable, D., & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and
person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232-241. King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon
(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Korte, R. E. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: A case
study of the socialization of newly hired engineers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 285-306.
Kramer, M. W. & Miller, V.D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational
socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation. Communication Monographs, 66, 358-367.
Kramer & Noland (1999). Communication during job promotions: A case of ongoing
assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 335-355. Krone, K. (2005). Trends in organizational communication research: Sustaining the
discipline, sustaining ourselves. Communication Studies, 56(1), 95-105. Levine, S. (2005). Inventing the rest of our lives: Women in second adulthood. New
York: Viking Penguin. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
119
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251. Lovitts, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition
from Ph.D. programs. Academe 2000, 86, 44-50. Lui, M., & Buzzanell, P. (2004). Negotiating maternity leave expectations. Journal of
Business Communication, 41(4), 323-349. Lundberg, C., & Young, C. (1997). Newcomer socialization: Critical incidents in
hospitality organizations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 21(2), 58-74.
Manning, K., & Stage, F. (2003). What is your research approach? In F. K. Stage & K.
Manning (Eds.), Research in the college context: Approaches and methods (pp. 19-31). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
McAuliffe, D. (2003). Challenging methodological traditions: Research by email. The
Qualitative Report, 8(1), 57-69. Meho, L. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological
discussion. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10), 1284-1295.
Mickel, A. E., Dallimore, E. J., & Nelson, C. (2008). What does the pursuit of a high
quality of life entail? Grounding a theoretical model in lived experience. Community, Work & Family, 11(3), 313-336.
Mignerey, J. T., Rubin, R. B., & Gorden, W. I. (1995). Organizational entry: An
investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication Research, 22(1), 54-85.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Miller, V.D., & Jablin, F. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:
Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92-120.
Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & McMinn, J. G. (2001). Self-categorization and work
group socialization. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 87-100). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
120
Morgan, S. J., & Symon, G. (2004). Electronic interviews in organizational research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 23-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557-589. Myers, K., & McPhee (2006). Influences of member assimilation in workgroups in high-
reliability organizations: A multilevel analysis. Human Communication Research, 32,440-468.
Myers, S. A. (1998). GTAs as organizational newcomers: The association between
supportive communication relationships and information seeking. Western Journal of Communication, 60(1), 54-73.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). NCES Fast Facts. Retrieved November
28, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts Nesheim, B., Guentzel, J., Gansemer-Topf, A., Ross, L., & Turrentine, C. (2006). If you
want to know, ask: Assessing the needs and experiences of graduate students. New Directions For Student Services, 15, 5-17.
Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 70, 274-287. Polson, C. J. (2003). Adult graduate students challenge institutions to change. New
Directions For Student Services, 102, 59-68. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 278-287. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the
past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-279.
Sanders, G. R., & Nassar, R. (1993). A study of MSW women students who have had
previous careers. Journal of Women & Aging, 5(1), 97-111. Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16. Scott, C., & Myers, K. (2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion
management at the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(1), 67-92.
121
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Shellenbarger, S. (2005). The breaking point: How female midlife crisis is transforming
today’s women. New York: Henry Holt. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. (2nd ed.) London: Sage. Slaughter, J. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in the
newcomer socialization process. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 264-290.
Smircich, L., & Calas, M. B. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In F.
M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 228-263). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, R. C., & Turner, P. K. (1995). A social reconstructionist reconfiguration of
metaphor analysis: An application of “SCMA” to organizational socialization theorizing. Communication Monographs, 62, 152-181.
Souza, T. J. (1999). Communication and alternative school socialization. Communication
Education, 48, 91-108. Spaite, M. E. (2004). The perception of the educational experience and role transition
process of the second-career psychologist. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 11B.
Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational
socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 231-249. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teboul, J. C. (1995). Determinants of new hire information-seeking during organizational
encounter. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 305-325. Teboul, J. C. (1997). “Scripting” the organization: New hire learning during
organizational encounter. Communication Research Reports, 14(1), 33-47. Tidwell, M., & Sias, P. (2005). Personality and information seeking: Understanding how
traits influence information-seeking behaviors. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 51-77.
Turner, P. (1999). What if you don’t? A response to Kramer and Miller. Communication
Monographs, 66, 382-389.
122
Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization.
Organizational Dynamics, 7, 19-36. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational
socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Van Manen, M. (2002). Writing phenomenology. In M. Van Manen (Ed.), Writing in the
dark: Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry (pp. 1-8). London, Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.
Vickers-Willis, R. (2002). Navigating midlife: Women becoming themselves. Crows Nest,
Australia: Allen & Unwin. Waldeck, J.H., & Myers, K.K. (2007). Organizational assimilation theory, research, and
implications for multiple areas of the discipline: A state of the art review. Communication Yearbook, 31, 322-367.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and
professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zorn, T. E., & Gregory, K. W. (2005). Learning the ropes together: Assimilation and
friendship development among first-year male medical students. Health Communication, 17(3), 211-231.